NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights and Duties of UN States has reached quorum, and should be up for vote in a few days. Here's your chance to get your blows in before it gets irretrievably into the system. I'm not looking for brown-nosing here - let loose with what's really wrong with it, or how it will screw up the game. I'll do my best to answer your questions. Here's the full, formatted text version:

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 Genesis of Rights and Duties of UN States

I can't claim credit for a lot of this material. The original draft of this document was a very lightly adapted copy of an early draft from the real world United Nations, called "A Declaration on Rights and Duties of the United Nations." It started with 14 articles, including a significant one on human rights and quite a bit more on the topic of war. I'm sorry to say I've lost the original link, and www.un.org is just a bit too sweeping for me to find it again.

In this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2616151), several nations provided input and suggestions over a three day period. My especial thanks go to Greesnpoint, Monocia, Nibbleton, Heru Ur, New Eriu, and Oppressed Possums, for their input and assistance. We ended up stripping away the human rights bit and adapting it more to the world of NationStates. Shortly afterwards, I completely rewrote the descriptive bit at the top (removing at least four "Whereas" statements, and updated the entire section on War to adapt to the fact that NationStates wars are fought only by mutual agreement. I rearranged it into the three relevant sections, and posted the final version.

Later that evening, I submitted the reformatted proposal, and posted this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900). Unfortunately, I made a strategic blunder in timing and campaigning, and it died with a respectable but unsatisfactory number of approvals. Foolishly, I repeated the mistake for the second pass, and it too died with perhaps double the approvals of the first attempt. But the third time, we'll make it happen, by golly. Thanks to some timely aid from Mikitivity (and the North Pacific (http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?act=idx) forums), the nations of Nibbleton and NewTexas, and any number of encouraging forum posts and telegrams; we managed to get the word out. Thanks also to Francos Spain, who pointed out that I misspelled the word ' proper grammer' in my campaign telegram. Dang it.

Discussions on Rights and Duties of UN States

I'm reprinting some of the discussions from the various topics, hopefully to forestall some of the inevitable questions that will arise from such a long and sweeping proposal. Minor edits have been made.

Sorry, but I'm opposed to national sovereignty proposals. They would take a lot of fun and intrigue out of the UN, whose purpose is precisely to be a game of national sovereignty limitations, if passed.
I appreciate your statement, and understand fully if you chose to not support it. Still, as a United Nations Regional Delegate, I'd still like your approval so that the rest of your Region (and others) could have the opportunity to vote. I've taken the position that I'll approve well-written proposals even if I personally oppose them, as the approval process isn't voting on the merits of the bill, but rather of the merits of *debating* the bill.

I'd like to think that I left plenty of room for precisely the sorts of intrigues that make NS fun, primarily in Articles 2, 3, and 10. While this is an adaptation of a document from the RL UN, I tried very hard to leave it open-ended. The statements on War provide ample opportunity for role-play scenarios, and "The Role of the United Nations" section makes it quite clear that the rules of the UN do indeed apply to all members. This is nothing new - the NationStates UN has a mandatory effect on its member nations.

This really isn't a National Sovereignty proposal, even though at first glance it might appear to be one. It's my opinion that this proposal isn't adding anything inhibiting to the world of NationStates. It is designed to state in clear and unambiguous language where the roles of the State and the Role of the UN intertwine. It's my hope that when passed it can be used as a cornerstone for other nations to build new proposals upon. It's also my hope that you'll help me in this quest.

Your proposal speaks of "The Art of War." This presupposes that war can be a work of art; however, war is killing people and destroying things. There is nothing artistic about killing people and destroying things. We of the Grand Atoll suggest "The Rules of War."
art 1. a fine skill that has resulted from natural ability, practice, or study.

Actually, Grand Atoll, the title The Art Of War was very deliberately chosen as a tribute to the Chinese philosopher/general, Sun Tzu (http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm). He was not describing war as being artistic, but rather was defining the fact that the rules of war are not in fact strictly codified, but rather must be interpreted according to the situation. Thus, War is Art rather than Science. If you read the book carefully, you will see that the most effective Art of War is choosing when not to fight.

Given that the Art of War entirely applies to war as fought in the NationStates, I'm afraid I'll have to decline this change.

i don't quite understand what article five is actually sayingThis is a good question and we'd be interested in hearing Frisbeeteria's intent as well.
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 j00 with one million billion nooks."

Mikitivity has two real options. The first would be to answer the challenge with, "Oh yeah? I n00k J00 right back. J00 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 nullified.

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

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 Deity of your choice. Miracles have been known to happen, even in the most Neutered of cases. A bit of Divine Cogitation can indeed invoke a Tactical State of Grace.

it does rather smack of Game Mechanics
I'm curious about this statement, though. I'm one of the most ardent haters of game mechanics proposals, and worked *very* hard to keep even a hint of GM out of this proposal. In fact, when you boil down the rhetoric of the proposal, all it does is define the actual rules of the game:

* Articles 1-3 - only you can play your nation's issues
* Articles 4-8 - war is roleplay
* Articles 9-11 - UN resolutions are binding on UN members

One last thing: "What's the deal with the squiggly bit? ( § )" First, I've seen it in some legal documents somewhere. No idea what it means, except to be a legal bullet point. Second, if you look over the Passed UN Resolutions list, you'll notice that all line breaks gets removed when a proposal becomes a Resolution. I was just thinking ahead by including a formatting divider.

I'll be happy to address specific questions and concerns from all UN members. I'd be delighted if most of the questions appeared in this topic, but am fully expecting a couple of dozen "I will RESIGN the UN!" topics popping up. Of course, anyone else who wishes to comment, or rebut any comments, is welcome to do so on my behalf, or their own.

Just so nobody blames me for proposal-eating servers or anything, I've been in communication with Frisbeeteria and he has allayed any suspicions I have about the proposal. Therefore, I am not going to touch it until it comes to a general vote, at which point I will vote on the matter.

Bump for consistency's sake.

So it has been approved, this time. I won't have to approve it for a fourth time :?:

So it has been approved, this time. I won't have to approve it for a fourth time :?:

Yes it appears to be in queue now, right behind the 'save the forests' one.

but am fully expecting a couple of dozen "I will RESIGN the UN!" topics popping up. .

You are likely to get many people saying 'THIS DOES NOTHING!!!" (as which happened in the passport issue). However, I disagree. While it dosn't actually 'do' anything, it does define the role of each state, within and without of the UN.

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

Since no one else wants to rise to the bait, I'll do a bit of self-critique.
Article 1 says nobody can dictate my form of government, but that last resolution changed me from an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy to a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. That's Sovereignty manipulation by the UN!
Nope. It changed your government description. Your government is what YOU define it as. Frisbeeteria shows up as a Left-Leaning College State, but we're actually a Corporate Oligarchy with strong libertarian values. We just look like a college state from the outside.
What are those legal powers anyway. You never bothered to define them, now did you?
Nope. That's your job. It's your country, you decide what's legal. Of course you're also bound by Articles 2, 3, 10, and 11, which clearly say what you're not allowed to legislate, plus you may have treaty obligations that came from outside the UN. The UN doesn't care about those outside obligations, but your treaty partners might. I'd advise not legislating yourself into a corner there.
What does "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" actually mean? Again with the undefined terms.
That which is not compulsory or prohibited by passed UN resolutions is yours to decide. Lots of people have found loopholes in prior resolutions and are using them already. That's up to you.
Article 9 talks about "the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State". What about Regional Delegates? They get a bunch of extra votes. That's hardly legal, now is it?
Equality in Law is not synonymous with equality in representation. The laws passed by the UN are applied equally to each member nation, regardless of its Delegate status. In theory, the representation issue is also equal – but it's gonna take a whole bunch of equality to unseat Francos Spain or 1 Infinite Loop from their Delegacies. Nothing stops you from finding a few like-minded friends to run off and found your own region, passing the Delegacy around on some regular basis. Are you going to have 500 votes? Not unless you've got a LOT of friends.
Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState. Hey, I'm a role-player, and that's what I do best. Stir 'em up and piss 'em off. You telling me I can't do that any more?
We're telling you that you shouldn't be doing that, that you have a Duty not to do that. Which isn't going to stop you from doing that, or from them retaliating by declaring war on your sorry butt. See Article 5, 7 and 8.

You are likely to get many people saying 'THIS DOES NOTHING!!!" (as which happened in the passport issue). However, I disagree. While it dosn't actually 'do' anything, it does define the role of each state, within and without of the UN.



I would be worried if people were voting no on this EXCELLENT resolution without stating why in the forums. I'd much rather we have the chance to discuss and explain why we believe others' opinion that this resolution "Does Nothing" is incorrect.

That said, once the resolution makes it to the floor, I will immediately vote YES.

Hopefully nations that do not visit the forum will see a large number of yes votes and follow the trend. I'd like to: (1) encourage nations to feel free to express themselves here, and (2) for UN Delegates (especially those of you with fat vote counts) to vote early.

-10kMichael

It doesn't suck. Wish I had your diligence...

Oh, and you're Capitalizt now, which at least ends the confusing situation where our nations had the same UN category but completely different ways of going about governing.

Best wishes

If you don't participate in the process, you're one of the sheep yourself. If you waited until it got to the floor to bitch about it, you're the one at fault. Head over to the proposals list, and DO something about it. I'm tired of hearing you whine.
I just posted this in one of the multitude of "Anti-Fair-Trial" topics. I'm tired of hearing about problems with proposals after they hit the floor. This proposal must have some problems for somebody, somewhere. This is your big chance to actually participate in the process. Read through Rights and Duties. Imagine all the different ways it can be interpreted and misinterpreted. Post your wildest scenarios, let forum members discuss them, and give me (and anyone else) a chance to rebut or agree. If it goes to the floor flawed, at least we'll know about it.

I am not going to put up with the crap you folks are giving the Fair Trial Amendment.

Get started.

If you don't participate in the process, you're one of the sheep yourself. If you waited until it got to the floor to bitch about it, you're the one at fault. Head over to the proposals list, and DO something about it. I'm tired of hearing you whine.
I just posted this in one of the multitude of "Anti-Fair-Trial" topics. I'm tired of hearing about problems with proposals after they hit the floor. This proposal must have some problems for somebody, somewhere. This is your big chance to actually participate in the process. Read through Rights and Duties. Imagine all the different ways it can be interpreted and misinterpreted. Post your wildest scenarios, let forum members discuss them, and give me (and anyone else) a chance to rebut or agree. If it goes to the floor flawed, at least we'll know about it.

I am not going to put up with the crap you folks are giving the Fair Trial Amendment.

Get started.

As somebody who has had a resolution adopted by this body, I would recommend that the delegate from Frisbeetaria ignore their telegrams and be prepared for a lot of facile argumentation when their resolution reaches the floor.

I made my full statement in support of this resolution in the other thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2734072#2734072).

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

Since joining the U.N (in the form of one puppet or another) I can literally count on one hand the number of proposals I have voted for. I think, maybe at most, two. This proposal, I'm quite happy to say, will be the third.

The UN member nation of Arynth congratulates Frisbeeteria on his patience and perseverence on getting this resolution finally up for UN member vote. All our questions have been answered regarding this resolution.

TheMadCelt
Private Secretary and Last Gunslinger
Arynth

Edit: Puppet post. D'oh!

As somebody who has had a resolution adopted by this body, I would recommend that the delegate from Frisbeetaria ignore their telegrams and be prepared for a lot of facile argumentation when their resolution reaches the floor.

Lord Evif, Delegates, Members, and Guests.

Thank you for your warm words. Frisbeeteria is delighted with the respect and lauds this yet un-passed proposal is garnering. Still, we are not satisfied.

We have no intention or desire to avoid a floor fight on this resolution. In fact, we relish the thought as both an intellectual challenge and a worthy debate. In that spirit, we are hoping to set an example to all who would propose resolutions before this august body.

If you are unwilling to stand at this podium, proposal at hand, as angry UN members shout questions and demand answers, then why are you wasting our time proposing them? This proposal started as an adaptation, went through a revision committee, was submitted and failed twice before finally passing, and now stands on the threshold of passage. Are Frisbeeterians proud of this accomplishment? Of course we are! How can we do other than stand FOR this proposal against all who would oppose it?

Lord Evif says this is a rare occurrence. I would ask, "Why?" Every proposal should be a labour of idealistic fervency; firmly and totally supported by its authors. Is this some child's game, that we throw scribbled notes on a page, toss them in front of these fine Members, and slip away into the night? I say thee, "Nay".

Let this be the start of a New Era for the UN. Let idealists gather in smaller rooms and collaborate on shared concepts. Let the committees meet for a day, a week, or a month; until the rough edges are filed away and the major objections answered. We are seeing this already, in studies of weapons, courts, and the use of space. There is ample room and credit for all who are willing to devote their time and effort to the success of their ideals.

Perhaps when the UN demonstrates that it has put childish practices behind it, the nations who have chosen to shun this body may in fact return to these halls. Share this dream with me, with Frisbeeteria, and with the world of NationStates.

I thank you for your time, and attention.
MJ Donovan, CEO,
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

The theocracy of Shirresh fully support this issue. It was to our dismay that the fair trial resolution was released for vote to the general public before the wise nations in our region appointed our representative as delegate.

It is our hope that all proposals receive strong debate and review before being approved to face the floor of the United Nations. Starting with the currently queued tree resolution that should not be considered.

When the issue of Rights and Duties goes to a vote of the entire United Nations, all nations in our region are prepared to vote in favor.

Aha! Found a genuine flaw.
The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.
The plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons.


If anyone knows where that excellent thread on IGNORE Cannon(s) is located, I'd appreciate if they'd post a link

Fris - I may call you Fris, may I? - are you sure that "cannon" is both singular and plural? I'm certain I've heard "The cannons spoke again" somewhere, as well as the famous "Cannon to the left of them/cannon to the right of them/into the valley of death/rode the six hundred."

-Overheard at the Strangers' Bar of the UN complex during a meeting between MJ Donovan of Frisbeeteria and Graf von Hermannstein of Enodia

are you sure that "cannon" is both singular and plural?

According to Merriam-Webster's 10th ed. "cannon" and "cannons" are both plural.

-10k

Okay, I'm just throwing stuff out here, because it could, _possibly_ be a complaint someone makes when this resolution is at vote.

"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."

Come on--it's a game! Who wants to worry about rights and responsibilities? Why shouldn't I just vote for whatever looks good to me? This is _way_ too serious.

"§ 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."

What's this mean? In plain English, I mean. What count as 'the immunities recognized by international law?'

"Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. "

What on earth is 'collective self-defense' and why should I be worried about it?

"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."

Why is this even in there?

"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."

Umm...this doesn't quite make sense to me: how do you 'foment civil strife' in someone else's nation? It can't be that easy to do--so why should I worry about it?

"Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5."

Plain English, please! Can you explain this?

"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."

So, wait--do I have this right? If I don't like something the UN passes, I can't just cop out of it? Why not? It's not like it hurts anybody...

"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."

Here's that international law thing again--what's the deal with this?

(give it a shot, y'all, or not...Ixtli)

I am appalled at this proposal! It is a discrase to everything the United Nations stands for! I am lobbying withing the region of Evermore to have everyone vote against this monstrosity!

Article 1 states that every state has the right to independance, this completely violates everything in the UN. If every nation could dismiss articles willy nilly, then there's no point in the UN's existance! Also.. this is a game mechanic change! It should have been deleted!

Article 4 I am all for. Raise up arms against opposors I say.. but what's this? Article five says you can 'opt out' of war? That's utter nonsense! Though I can sort of understand it withing the game, since there are no real methods for handling war. However, I stand against this, and as representitive of my House I will lobby against it in New Eriu's Circle of Elders.

Article 8.. does this mean that two nations should not aid the war efforts of those nations that they endorse the reasons for whatever war that is going on? Preposterous! If the Nation of CAAP decides to envade a nation (and I'm likely they will given the nature of their leader, Furfurus) I'm all for supporting their war efforts! Likewise, if RvOvLvIvN were attacked, we would most certainly come to their aid! This says we have a 'duty' not too.

Article 10 makes no sense. I have no idea what this is saying at all, please clarify this.

I am against this proposal, I feel it should have been deleted officially by a moderator, and the heathen Frisbeeteria been warned or KICKED from the UN. I urge every respectible nation to VOTE AGAINST this monstrosity!

--------------------
Arch-Druid Connor ApDonnal, Elder of the Seventh House.

(OOC: note - I normally make most points as Phineous Oakhurst (who completely supports fris and this proposal), but this post needed an alternate opinion that is not my own =) I honestly think I know the answers to most of the above, but you wanted objections so.... Yes some of these are irrational, but so are most people.)

[Unavoidably OOC]
Thanks for taking up the challenge, Ixtli. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Come on--it's a game! Who wants to worry about rights and responsibilities?
This is the description paragraph, and is there to establish what we're going on about. The point I wanted to drive home is that game or not, you don't get rights without taking on responsibilities. One of my favorite acronyms is TANSTAAFL. (I'm sure many of you know this, but ..)
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
If you go into a bar that offers 'free' lunches or snacks or whatnot, you'll pay for them in the higher prices of the drinks. Or some heavy drinker will pay your share. Whatever - nothing is free. Somebody pays. I don't pound that point home all that hard, but the implication is certainly there in this game. It's time somebody stood up and asked, "Who's going to pay for all these things we're guaranteeing?" That's why the word Duty is so prominent in this resolution.

What's this mean? In plain English, I mean. What count as 'the immunities recognized by international law?'
International Law is whatever the UN passes. Immunity means you as a nation can't alter those laws by yourself - it's immune from your challenge. You can work with the UN resolutions, but you can't work against them.

What on earth is 'collective self-defense?
You have to take it as an entire phrase. "Individual or collective self-defense" means that if you get attacked, either you or you plus your buddies can beat up on the other guy. IF you're attacked first, that is. That's the self-defense part.

Article 5: Why is this even in there?
What? The entire article? That's the key to war here.

Unlike the 'other world' that some folks like to go on about, nations in the world of NationStates can't be attacked unless they want to play along. If you don't want to go to war, you ignore the other guy. If he doesn't stop trying to attack, your friends can help by ignoring him even harder. Eventually he'll go away. Read up in the third post of this topic for a better description.

how do you 'foment civil strife' in someone else's nation?
You do that by sending in agitators to disrupt their nation, by delivering propaganda to their citizens, by trying forcibly to change their government. You can't do it in game terms, but it might make for some good roleplay to defend against (or do some fomenting of your own, and pay the consequences).

the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition - Can you explain this?
In game terms, if somebody steals someone's nation, you don't endorse them. In roleplay terms, you refuse to acknowledge that the territory is legally theirs, and you might even choose to take military or diplomatic actions to return it to its rightful owner.

If I don't like something the UN passes, I can't just cop out of it? It's not like it hurts anybody...
Nope. It's not like you have a choice, either. The Compliance Ministry will see to it that your national stats reflect any passed resolutions during your membership. As for the ones that were passed before you joined ? well, that's a bit of a gray area. In game terms, they have no effect. In roleplay terms, your membership in the UN means that you have accepted these terms as the law of YOUR land. If someone wants to call you on them, they have every right. See the Joccian Whore Wars for an example. I'm sure there are others.

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

This is a complex legal document, and some of the concepts don't really translate into plain English. In every case, I've attempted to use the exact word or phrase that best captures the intent of what I'm trying to say, without saying more than I want. It's not easy, and if I hadn't started with a existing document that had been read and approved by fine legal minds, I doubt it would have ever been produced.

This proposal is all about roleplaying. If you don't roleplay, the vast majority of this document will have no in-game effect on your nation. No UN resolution ever has, or ever will. The only things that will be affected in game terms are your 'political freedoms' and your 'law and order', because that's all the game allows. But roleplay will be heavily affected, because we've introduced a whole lot of new information into the world of NationStates.

Some of the better roleplayers have created national constitutions or sets of laws that incorporate most or all of these ideas already. Those aren't the ones that will benefit from this document. This is designed to give a jumping-off point for the players who have neither the time nor the legal / political knowledge to create their own sets of rules.

(OOC: note - I normally make most points as Phineous Oakhurst, but this post needed an alternate opinion that is not my own =) I honestly think I know the answers to most of the above ...)
Then let's give Phineous a crack at them. I need a drink after responding to Itxli. Or even trying to pronounce Itxli.

Don't worry - I've got your back. I'll be watching from the bar, and I'll come back and bail you out if you make any hideous mistakes.

-Donovan

Then let's give Phineous a crack at them.
(ooc)
Fair Enough,

(ooc looking this over for a rebuttle.. I SWEAR it has changed since I wrote connor's post, copying the one on the proposals list. Oh well)

I am lobbying withing the region of Evermore to have everyone vote against this monstrosity!
(ic)
Aah, Archdruid ApDonnal. I"m not supprised to see you sticking your nose in my affairs, but not appalled. After all democracy requires look at all opinions.

Since you are only one of nine council members representing a house, you'll have a hard time swaying New Eriu's vote, as the other eight seemed (last I spoke with them) unanimously in favour. That said, lets take a moment to look at your arguments to see if they warrent a re-evaluation of this proposal.

Article 1 states that every state has the right to independance, this completely violates everything in the UN. If every nation could dismiss articles willy nilly, then there's no point in the UN's existance! Also.. this is a game mechanic change! It should have been deleted!
(ic)
Every nationstate does have the RIGHT to independance. However, this right is signed away when a nation joins the UN. As explained later in the document (A11), United Nations members must abide by the rules of international law. This duty superceeds the right to independance.

Article five says you can 'opt out' of war? That's utter nonsense! Though I can sort of understand it withing the game, since there are no real methods for handling war.
(ooc)
And that's exactly the point. There is no in game warfare. As an out-of-character context, many players like this game for the political/social aspects rather than wargame roleplay, myself included.

Article 8.. does this mean that two nations should not aid the war efforts of those nations that they endorse the reasons for whatever war that is going on?
(ic)
Well, the dictator of CAAP can certainly fight her own battles well enough, but on a less specific level.

Article 8 is talking about territorial acquisition, not about war in general. Lets say for example CAAP invades New Machinus. Lets also presume New Machinus' War Consul (or equivalent) is on holidays and cannot respond to CAAP's army. By default the I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons will keep CAAPs army at bay until such a time as New Machinus can and chooses to respond.

Should CAAP claim victory by default, and claim that New Machinus now belongs to her, it is our duty to refrain from acknowledging that unless New Machinus has agreed that during the roleplay involved it makes sence that CAAP would have reasonably won and New Machinus has agreed that they are occupied by CAAP.

Article 10 makes no sense. I have no idea what this is saying at all, please clarify this.

(ooc: when I wrote connor's post I was in a hurry, glanced at it quickly and didn't much understand. Since you put the onus on phineous to clarify, I had to look at it again. Hope I got it right.)

(IC)

Certainly. It is the duty of each nationstate to carry out the laws in 'the best possible light'. Although I do agree that this tends to be a little vague. I would imagine this is to provent the types of abuse Joccia has been cooking up. However, I don't think it actually does. Nice effort though.

The second part says that provisions cannot be issued in a nation's laws as an excuse for not enacting this law. With the Euthanasia law, many states have issued legislature to the effect that they must have a form filled out and sent to the Govener themselves for approval before the Euthanasia can be carried out. On discussion with a few of these states (who I shall opt not to name) they have mentioned that the form does not exist, and even if it did, the Govener would not have time to sign them anyways.

This type of thing is a provision to 'get around' the euthanasia act, and this article specifically says this is not permissable.

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

(ooc. btw CAAP, RvOvLvIvN and New Machinus are nations in the region of Evermore, and used as examples in a context both my characters would understand. CAAP is pretty war-bent (and I know the leader personally IRL). RvOvLvIvN is a net-friend of mine, and his country policies match New Eriu's pretty well. RvOvLvIvN is the one who got the rest of our region interested in NationStates. New Machinus is a nation I don't know much about, but serves as an example.)

Article 1 states that every state has the right to independance, this completely violates everything in the UN. If every nation could dismiss articles willy nilly, then there's no point in the UN's existance! Also.. this is a game mechanic change! It should have been deleted!
"The right to independence" doesnt mean that if it is a UN member, it can dismiss proposals.
It means that the nation has the right to govern itself, and not to have another nation force itself upon it.
Joining the UN means that the nation agrees to abide by the laws stated in bills passed by the UN. It could be argued that this means the UN is partially governing the nation, but as the nation chose to be in the UN, it is not in voilation of the rights. Also, the nation is free to leave the UN at any time.

Article 4 I am all for. Raise up arms against opposors I say.. but what's this? Article five says you can 'opt out' of war? That's utter nonsense! Though I can sort of understand it withing the game, since there are no real methods for handling war. However, I stand against this, and as representitive of my House I will lobby against it in New Eriu's Circle of Elders.
As you said, you can understand this "within the game," as the proposal only applies within the game, that's all that matters.
The right to "opt-out" of war is a reference to the fact that an RPed war can only be done by mutual agreement of both sides. If a nation wishes to, it can opt-out and choose not to fight in the war.

Article 8.. does this mean that two nations should not aid the war efforts of those nations that they endorse the reasons for whatever war that is going on? Preposterous! If the Nation of CAAP decides to envade a nation (and I'm likely they will given the nature of their leader, Furfurus) I'm all for supporting their war efforts! Likewise, if RvOvLvIvN were attacked, we would most certainly come to their aid! This says we have a 'duty' not too.
Article 8 is merely saying that if a nation A has decided not to go to war with nation B, and nation B goes ahead and invades without nation A's acknolegement (sp?) then any land or resources nation B claims as a result should be ignored.

Article 10 makes no sense. I have no idea what this is saying at all, please clarify this.
This says that if, for instance, you are in an alliance and the alliance treaty gives you certain obligations, you must carry out these obligations in good faith, and cannot claim that laws within your nation prevent you from carrying them out. (If this was the case, you shouldnt have entered the alliance in the first place)

I am against this proposal, I feel it should have been deleted officially by a moderator, and the heathen Frisbeeteria been warned or KICKED from the UN. I urge every respectible nation to VOTE AGAINST this monstrosity!
This is a perfectly valid proposal and there is no reason for any moderators to delete it. This is possibly the best proposal this game's UN has ever seen, and anyone who says otherwise should have unspeakable things done to their genetalia.

Party On,
Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

This is possibly the best proposal this game's UN has ever seen, and anyone who says otherwise should have unspeakable things done to their genetalia.

*coughs slightly* The archdruids on teh council are eunichs, so this is hardly a threat. However I'm sure Connor will be back raging mad on monday (he gets weekends off, lucky bastard)

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

Tossing this towards the front burner for further discussion.

I need a drink after responding to Itxli. Or even trying to pronounce Itxli.

Just to avoid further headaches...you say it "ish-tli" (sorry, I'm not up on my phonetic symbols). :)

Goobergunchia wrote:
"I'm tired of hearing about problems with proposals after they hit the floor."

How about, instead of merely complaining in this manner, you point out where and how one is supposed to read through proposals and debate their issues prior to said proposals hitting the floor?

That would go many great lengths further toward achieving what you seem to want than your current attitude and actions.

Goobergunchia wrote:
"I'm tired of hearing about problems with proposals after they hit the floor."

How about, instead of merely complaining in this manner, you point out where and how one is supposed to read through proposals and debate their issues prior to said proposals hitting the floor?

That would go many great lengths further toward achieving what you seem to want than your current attitude and actions.

How about, instead of merely complaining in this manner, you point out where and how one is supposed to read through proposals and debate their issues prior to said proposals hitting the floor?
Mechanoids, I don't see how that is Gooberguncia's responsibility, or for that matter anyone elses. Allow me to point out some basics from the main UN page, available to ALL nations:

The Question of Soveriegnty:
The UN is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by UN rules. [More Information (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/faq.html#UN)]

Where to Debate the Issues:
Debate this issue in the UN forum! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?forum=3)

What has been passed before:
[UN Resolutions Throughout History (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/37764/page=UN_past_resolutions)]

Where can proposals be viewed and submitted?
Proposals are suggestions for resolutions. Any UN member nation with at least two endorsements may make a proposal, which, if it gains the necessary support, will become a resolution.

[List Proposals (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/37764/page=UN_proposal)] [Submit a Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/37764/page=UN_new_proposal)]

I think that's just about as plain as plain can be. This is a simple game. There are only about three things you can do - address your own issues, roleplay on the Forums, and work with the UN. There on one single page that is available to all nations is ALL the information anyone needs to figure all the UN stuff out. If anyone is playing this game and can't find one of only four major headings of things their nation can do, then they deserve every bit of derision that gets tossed their way.

It can't get any clearer. Why is that Goobergunchia's problem?

How about, instead of merely complaining in this manner, you point out where and how one is supposed to read through proposals and debate their issues prior to said proposals hitting the floor?


if you go to 'list proposals' in the UN screen it shows all of the proposals proposed (You knew this.. I hope!) At the top of the list you see the ones that have reached quorum and are in queue.

It only makes sence to start debating issues while they are in queue rather than when they hit the floor. If there is a major problem with a proposal, it is possible to get nations to see this and recind their endorsement, which would also (at least theoretically) remove the proposal from queue.

-----------------------
Brighid Cormugal - Director of Facilitation.
"Making everyone's lives easier, one clarification at a time"

I must admit. I am afraid of supporting this bill.

Why, you ask?

The opposite side has always won on every bill I've voted on.

I don't want to doom this well-thought out and well-written bill.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

if you go to 'list proposals' in the UN screen it shows all of the proposals proposed (You knew this.. I hope!) At the top of the list you see the ones that have reached quorum and are in queue.

It only makes sence to start debating issues while they are in queue rather than when they hit the floor. If there is a major problem with a proposal, it is possible to get nations to see this and recind their endorsement, which would also (at least theoretically) remove the proposal from queue.



You are of course discounting the possibility that people don't want there to be a debate or discussion on a proposal until after it gets enough endorsements. I'm under the impression that UN Delegates take this organization seriously enough to look through the queue of proposals. In fact, that is how proposals become resolutions.

However, 1,000s of other nations never do much more than glance at the basic intent of a resolution and vote. The letter of the law and what a few of us are trying to do probably never enters into their decision making process.

For a little over a week I've advocated that this is because our UN allows us to proxy vote without ever attending a UN forum debate. I think over time a more than a few people have realized that once you drop in anything sexy and flashy and simple into a proposal, that if you can just get that 6% (at the present time) endorse from the UN Delegates, that your resolution will pass.

With this in mind, should I ever submit a proposal, I have considered adding a clause that would state "DESIGNATES that raccoons are a protected species and need to be given to every poor third grader in the world".

OK, perhaps I jest, but I do think the question related to how nations vote is worth examining in greater detail.

10kMichael

While you are correct, the problem being is that most people only look at the surface of a proposal without understanding it's implications or possible loopholes. These same people do not check the forum for the opposing side. Once it's reached quorum it's too late to ratify this, and we have bills passing that have grievious concequences BEYOND the scope of the original 'fix'.

UCPL, Euthanasia and Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill all fall into this category. Just looking at the title makes me go 'oh yes, let's vote for this this looks good', but after reading the bill and discussing it on the board, all three of these have grevious effects that are a result of imprecise wording of legislature. (See Joccia's rampant abuse of the Euthanasia bill)

Therefore, the best way to ensure 'the best' proposals reach quorum is to debate them before they reach quorum. I would imagine that most of the delegates who endorse proposals are serious enough to check the boards every so often.

Once it reaches Quorum it's often 'too late' to fix the problems with a bill. As an example of this, look at the 'save the forests' issue. The proposal writer has asked mods to delete it since he's re-written it. However it will hit quorum and it will pass because it's one of those 'feel good' type resoloutions that ALWAYS pass.

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

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.
Certainly. It is the duty of each nationstate to carry out the laws in 'the best possible light'. Although I do agree that this tends to be a little vague. I would imagine this is to provent the types of abuse Joccia has been cooking up. However, I don't think it actually does. Nice effort though.

The second part says that provisions cannot be issued in a nation's laws as an excuse for not enacting this law. With the Euthanasia law, many states have issued legislature to the effect that they must have a form filled out and sent to the Govener themselves for approval before the Euthanasia can be carried out. On discussion with a few of these states (who I shall opt not to name) they have mentioned that the form does not exist, and even if it did, the Govener would not have time to sign them anyways.

This type of thing is a provision to 'get around' the euthanasia act, and this article specifically says this is not permissable.
I want to amplify, or rather de-amplify, this aspect of Article 10. This article states that your nation cannot use a national constitution or laws as an excuse to NOT perform its duty. It does not limit that nation from amplifiying or clarifying those laws.

Citing the prostitution example, where one must get a Presidential Approval to practice the art of prostitution, Article 10 would not prevent this from happening. That would be "carry[ing] out in good faith its obligations" and permitting prostitution within the legal framework of that nation. If another UN member chose to question whether this nation had acted in good faith, they have that right.

I would even go so far as to construe that such questions from the international community would not constitute violation of Article 3, which states in part, "...has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention...", as this would qualify as a genuine immunity under international law. If the Accused nation responds to such a question with any reply resembling, "Oh yeah, whatchoo gonna do about it?", I would interpret that as a "requested intervention".

Article 10 would not have prevented the Joccian Whore Wars. Joccia performed correctly under international law, and the consortium of nations who rose in opposition also acted correctly. That is the price of having differences of opinion in international situations. There is no single correct answer.

I want to amplify, or rather de-amplify, this aspect of Article 10. This article states that your nation cannot use a national constitution or laws as an excuse to NOT perform its duty. It does not limit that nation from amplifiying or clarifying those laws.

Citing the prostitution example, where one must get a Presidential Approval to practice the art of prostitution, Article 10 would not prevent this from happening. That would be "carry[ing] out in good faith its obligations" and permitting prostitution within the legal framework of that nation. If another UN member chose to question whether this nation had acted in good faith, they have that right.

I would even go so far as to construe that such questions from the international community would not constitute violation of Article 3, which states in part, "...has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention...", as this would qualify as a genuine immunity under international law. If the Accused nation responds to such a question with any reply resembling, "Oh yeah, whatchoo gonna do about it?", I would interpret that as a "requested intervention".

Article 10 would not have prevented the Joccian Whore Wars. Joccia performed correctly under international law, and the consortium of nations who rose in opposition also acted correctly. That is the price of having differences of opinion in international situations. There is no single correct answer.

This is a very important point you've raised. The idea that UN members will start to question the good faith implementation of other nations, is exactly what I've released in my current draft proposals in response to the Joccian Genocide. While it appears that that nation has run out of minorities to execute in the name of UN resolutions, my nation is not convinced that the Joccian government is not emboldened by the lack of response on the part of the UN and may repeat this again.

Essentially your interpetation of Article 10 here is suggesting that UN resolutions do include more than simply the letter of the law, but also some sort of intent needs to be measured and judged upon by the members of this organization.

Citing the Joccian Genocide (I would hardly call the murder of Elves, Minorities, Elderly, and political dissents a "Whore War"), the problem was not a failure on the part of the Joccian government to address the legalization of prostitution, but rather to make a political judgement on the medical condition of entire populations of people and then exterminate them. In other words, the prostitution legalization effort was merely the first means for the Joccian government to justify rounding up people and registering them. You all are forgetting that Joccia also requires your citizens to place on file travel documents in response to the passport harmonization resolution that are also used in making discriminatory practices legal in their country. That government (Joccia) has consistently made decisions that even school children realize are counter to the intent of this body's will!

Unfortunately telepathic scans have no written record and by Confederation practice can not be used in a court, but it is easy to look at the debate and discussion related to a resolution and make a strong case for when a nation does not make a good faith attempt to adopt UN policies.

The bottom line is as follows, we did not force anybody to join the UN. We are not about to start to force nations to remain in the UN. So why would we want to allow nations to remain in the UN if they aren't going to respect its decisions? Article 10 and the ability to question a nation's implementation of a resolution should clearly be allowed, in order to protect and keep this organization meaningful.

Bringing over a couple of good arguments from the older topic, just so everything is here in one place

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.

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.

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

East Hackney thanks Frisbeeteria for providing a rare voice of sanity in these halls. This spectre of "national sovereignty" is too often being used as a catch-all excuse for opposing legislation when the opposers have no rational grounds on which to mount an argument.
We concur: "national sovereignty" does not, in fact, currently exist for UN members. Frisbeeteria's proposal would go a long way towards creating a workable definition by which proposals can be judged.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

This spectre of "national sovereignty" is too often being used as a catch-all excuse for opposing legislation when the opposers have no rational grounds on which to mount an argument
I was in fact thinking of retitling this document, "The Myth of Sovereignty", but figured that no one would know what the hell I was talking about.

We'll just leave it at "DISCUSSION".

The Myth of Sovereignty

Agreed. Perhaps, next time some badly informed nation starts talking about "sovereignty", we should mandate the UN to form a hunting party to go out and search for this strange beast that no-one has ever set eyes on. And right after that we can go and look for the Yeti.

The Myth of Sovereignty

Agreed. Perhaps, next time some badly informed nation starts talking about "sovereignty", we should mandate the UN to form a hunting party to go out and search for this strange beast that no-one has ever set eyes on. And right after that we can go and look for the Yeti.

I disagree. Just because sovereignty is not documented does not mean that it is not practiced nor does it not exist.

For example, last week I posted a poll concerning UN action in relation to the Joccian Genocide. Joccia being a UN member should be bound in good faith by the principles and resolutions passed by this assembly. I asked if nations felt that what Joccia did inside its own borders is none of our business. A few nations felt that was in fact the case.

So while sovereignty might not be documented or granted, it still exists.

I'm not advocating that we need to spell out what is sovereign and what is not, because through the debate and discussion of each proposed resolution that is ultimately what we are here to do. But at the same time, if you can not see the Yeti before your eyes, then I would suggest your nation get more involved in the issue based discussions going on each and every day.

I would have several comments about the proposal were it not for one simple point: nations can't actually *do* anything but vote, correspond, and aggregate. How would any nation adhere to or violate this amendment at all?

Maybe I'm missing something, and perhaps you can overlook my point as seemingly simplistic, but really, what will the effect of this amendment be, barring future changes to the game mechanics?

Copy me on replies if you like.

How would any nation adhere to or violate this amendment at all?
First of all, it's not an amendment. It's a Declaration. Its primary purpose is to more clearly define the divisions in the UN. Up to now, they've only been assumed.

Second, no proposal, resolution, or declaration does anything more than the fairly simple game-mechanics effects that are listed in the Submit Proposal view. It's a simplistic game, with simplistic rules.

Which brings us to Third. It's an aid to role-play. Roleplaying nations is the best part of this game, IMNSHO, and this is a great touchstone for that. Its purpose is to provoke debate, inspire discussion, and give us something to bitch and moan about. When it comes down to it, that's all we really look for in here.

AHA!

The Not-So-Secret History of the Idiot Godmoder Noncontinuity Omni-Repellant Eradicator Supercannon (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98922) (I.G.N.O.R.E. Supercannon)

I disagree. Just because sovereignty is not documented does not mean that it is not practiced nor does it not exist.

Up to a point, comrade Mikitivity, up to a point.
First, while a quick trawl through the UN forums reveals that all members believe in some form of national sovereignty, there is almost no agreement as to what this strange beastie looks like.
Second, since national sovereignty is not codified and there are no theoretical limits to the UN's power, sovereignty exists only inasmuch as the UN continues to allow it and nation states continue to believe in it. In other words, it's a figment of our collective imaginations.

Like it or not - and I don't like it - the UN is capable of overruling national sovereignty on any issue whatsoever. So national sovereignty is a half-formed concept at best and a total fantasy at worst.

if you can not see the Yeti before your eyes, then I would suggest your nation get more involved in the issue based discussions going on each and every day.

East Hackney is involved heavily in these forums on a daily basis. We see a great deal of talk about this Yeti, but we still haven't seen the beast itself. That is why we are supporting Frisbeeteria's proposal, which - if you'll forgive us for flogging this dead metaphor one more time - constitutes a serious attempt to draw a picture of the beastie in question.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

*Ecopoeia hat once again placed to one side*

I appreciate that it may seem paradoxical to belittle national sovereignty in a game specifically about nations; however, I hold the belief that this sovereignty should not be held sacred. I find even patriotism distasteful, never mind extreme forms of nationalism. It strikes me that to fervently identify with the patch of soil and rock you call home is not an admirable or rational action.

The problem is where you draw lines, how you strike balances. You need local, national and supra-national sovereignty to be in proportions appropriate to the issue at hand. This also applies to national/international versus corporate sovereignty, which is where things get really controversial.

In this game there is a difference - these are our worlds that we have created to reflect our personal view on the way things should be done. It therefore makes sense to passionately defend the principles on which they are founded. However, if you join a UN that has a degree of power that you find inappropriate then you have to expect to be aggrieved on occasion. I wish people would realise this.

Sorry this is another one of my impenetrable rambles, I don't really get the time to plan and clarify my postings.

*Puts on Ecopoeia hat at a disarmingly rakish angle*

Now, where's this Yeti creature you guys are obsessing about?

Desmond 'Coyote' Hawkins
Scruffy Rambling Man
The Community of Ecopoeia

I've yet to see in these posts an explanation as to the benefit gained by passing this resolution.

A couple of posts raised the point that this resolution does nothing. The responses to those posts did not help me understand why is necessary to clarify the UN's role or how passing this resolution improves the UN.

I was hoping that this resolution would include a method to limit the UN's concerns to international issues but that doesn't seem to be the case.

A quick trawl through the UN threads will reveal that the issue of national sovereignty is causing a great deal of controversy at the moment and, furthermore, that there are many incompatible interpretations of national sovereignty and where it begins and ends.

Anything that gives us a basic framework by which to judge what is and is not fit business for the UN is to be welcomed.

There is no way in which we can actually limit the UN's ability to rule on national issues, since that would involve alterations to the game mechanics (which are strictly forbidden and lead to dire retribution from Enodia, the forum mod).
However, we can collectively come up with a set of guidelines to be referred to when writing and debating proposals. This won't stop nations from breaking them when writing proposals, but it will give us a more concrete foundation on which to base our discussions - something which is sorely lacking at present.

Well, personally while the proposal is a good idea in theory, I am going to vote against it. Our people live free in The Dragonlands, but don't always agree with the proposals. It is articles 9-11 that make me suspicious. It doesn't seem to do much to me besides reiterate the fact that all UN Proposals are binding even if you don't want them.

I believe UN members should be able to exercise at least some freedom and have our nations keep some sense of individuality. Sure this can become corrupted, but the idea is to not have every single resolution be forced upon unwilling member nations. There of course should be priorities given, and some laws should be binding or everyone. But something such as Save the Woods is something of a smaller scale, and does not need to be forced down every nations' throats

Also, the fact that I haven't yet seen a resolution that has been voted down probably influences this as well. Every time a proposal becomes a resolution, it seems to automattically win. So usually there is a relatively minor issue and you dont wanna have it, then you're basically told "well, Tough Luck."

I believe UN members should be able to exercise at least some freedom and have our nations keep some sense of individuality. Sure this can become corrupted, but the idea is to not have every single resolution be forced upon unwilling member nations. There of course should be priorities given, and some laws should be binding or everyone. But something such as Save the Woods is something of a smaller scale, and does not need to be forced down every nations' throats

We don't really have a choice on this issue either way and no resolution the UN can pass will alter it. All resolutions affect all UN members - it's a game mechanics issue.

This resolution is, in part, an attempt to codify all the established law regarding the UN. Since resolutions are binding on all member states and this will never change unless the mods decide to change it, it makes sense to include this fact in a summary of UN law.

Also, the fact that I haven't yet seen a resolution that has been voted down probably influences this as well. Every time a proposal becomes a resolution, it seems to automattically win.

There have been a few - see this thread:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124331

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Dragonlands, this proposal acts as a spur for people to make 'good' proposals. You should be happy about that.

Also, it doesn't matter if you don't like a proposal that gets passed because, as the proposal states, THEY ARE BINDING. You're in the UN, you get affected. That's how the system operates and there's no way past that because that's how the game's designed. You can't pick and choose which resolution you want to comply with. If you don't like this, then get out of the UN.

If you don't like this, then get out of the UN.
And Ecepoeia isn't being a hard-ass by saying this either. You really only have two choices - stay in and accept the consequences, or leave, and don't be affected at all. It's a statement of fact, not a challenge.

I will vote against this proposal on the grounds that it does nothing. Codifying in this manner is merely saying to the mods, we'll carry on and do it your way, or 'brown nosing'.

The basic fact is that the only reason most nations are here at all is to back up their regional delegate who does have power over their nation.
(Look at the date of joining of the majority of active nations if you do not believe me).

The vast majority of nations within NS have long ago decided to leave the UN and only leave a puppet here to allow them to have some effect on their region. Until there is a major Game mechanics change that will allow participation in UN debates without getting your nation amended from under you this will continue to be the case!

Finally I congratulate Frisbeeteria on it's devotion to this cause but the quote from Ecopoeia

"If you don't like this, then get out of the UN"

is currently being practised by the majority of nations within NS, to the effect that now most resolutions are unrealistic but still passed as the majority pay little or no attention to the UN as it is viewed as irrelevent.

I will vote against this proposal on the grounds that it does nothing. Codifying in this manner is merely saying to the mods, we'll carry on and do it your way, or 'brown nosing'.

The basic fact is that the only reason most nations are here at all is to back up their regional delegate who does have power over their nation.
(Look at the date of joining of the majority of active nations if you do not believe me).

The vast majority of nations within NS have long ago decided to leave the UN and only leave a puppet here to allow them to have some effect on their region. Until there is a major Game mechanics change that will allow participation in UN debates without getting your nation amended from under you this will continue to be the case!

Finally I congratulate Frisbeeteria on it's devotion to this cause but the quote from Ecopoeia

"If you don't like this, then get out of the UN"

is currently being practised by the majority of nations within NS, to the effect that now most resolutions are unrealistic but still passed as the majority pay little or no attention to the UN as it is viewed as irrelevent.

I like to think that I champion both national and supra-national ideals. The unfortunate thing I see here, is a game mechanics issue and not how one defines national sovereignity.

The UN probably SHOULD be an area dedicated to protecting a nation's sovereignity while also providing a means for representing people worldwide at a common (albeit sometimes lowest) denominator. The UN should probably be doing this by having its members actually debate the provisions of a certain proposal prior to its hitting the floor for voting. The model here exists, but the problem is a game mechanics one. The game cannot force people into the forum to debate prior to voting for resolutions. If this were the case, I agree... live with the results or get out. So, we get jacked up proposals that give birth to jacked up resolutions.

However, you still need to raise a stink as much as you can regarding the debating of resolutions and national sovereignity in this forum. Work from within, wait until the dim folks lose interest, and hope that things get better.

BTW... my one vote was cast in favor of this prop. Well written, well thought out, and further defining the line between national and supra-national interests. Thanks Frisbeeteria.

Until there is a major Game mechanics change that will allow participation in UN debates without getting your nation amended from under you this will continue to be the case!


Nations can currently participate in UN debates without adopting UN policy. It is called leaving the UN, but staying in the UN forum. My nation has contacted its neighbors and encouraged that they do exactly this. They help protect the Confederation in military matters, the Confederation helps to keep them advised of international social and political agendas.

As for this so-called do nothing proposal, nothing could be further from the truth. Should this resolution pass, it will give nations sound arguements to oppose poorly thought out resolutions that infringe upon domestic policies.

You are right that we can't enforce a will, but look at what Joccia recently did. It legalized prostitution by killing over 200,000 people. Nations are using loop-holes to undermine UN resolutions right now. But if fewer poor resolutions were accepted, it is possible that more nations would rejoin the UN.

Honestly, what harm could this resolution possibly bring Phu Kit? Or perhaps is Phu Kit interested in enforcing its will on other nations? Clearly, if you are from a society that likes to force its will on other nations, then you should stand opposed to this resolution.

Rights and Duties of UN States has reached quorum, and should be up for vote in a few days. Here's your chance to get your blows in before it gets irretrievably into the system. I'm not looking for brown-nosing here - let loose with what's really wrong with it, or how it will screw up the game. I'll do my best to answer your questions. Here's the full, formatted text version:

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.

:evil: :evil:

Ok, people... If you 'think' you like this... look again!

Topic One:

Article 1 is the only good article in the entire bill.

Two:

Art. 2 is saying that creaters and highly popular deliagates have 'ultimate' power. It is also saying that you can be kicked out of your territory just because the top UN member says so. It also takes away power from small Nations that are UN deliagetes.

Three:

Art 3 is saying that a Nation can not control their own economy!

Four:

Art 4 is not real because we can not have an 'armed attack; there was a question on war and the creater of this site said that war is not valid... it can not happen!

Five:

We can not have arms... there is anoter fault in this bill!

Six:

We can not even protect ourselves form rebellion! They can plot rebellion from right under our noses and we can not do anything!

Seven:

We can not do anything to a violator?!? That is even more crazy! We can not just stop being friends because of a different oppinion!

Eight:

Art 9 says that we have to more or move out a distributing territory just because of someone who you disagree with!

Nine:

Act. 10 says that we must change out selves to fit the UN? That says the UN is an 'own all' force!

Ten:

Art 11 just says what I am saying! The bill makes no sence!





Do not vote for this! The person is on the 3rd time! It has failed 2 times before... let's make it 3!

The Kingdom of Brandoj supports almost the entirety of this bill, however his highness King Brandoj would like to address the idea that this bill addresses some of the more intrusive bills that have been passed.

The UN definitely needs to have some restraint. Legalize Prostitution? Save the forests of the world? Rediculous! Both of these were domestic issues for each NationState, but were passed simply because a majority of people liked the idea and did not respect the boundaries of UN power.

This bill does little to address these problems. Most of the bill simply establishes rules of conduct between NationSates without holding the UN accountable. In fact, the only article that affects the UN is Article 10:

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 article makes each UN legislation enforcable by international law. If you are a member of the UN you can no longer ignore such legislation as legalization of prostitution. In fact, you may be required to ignore or rewrite your constitution in order to accomodate such legislation. This is a spring-board for a totalitarian international government where only politically popular bills are passed and a one-size-fits-all approach is embraced for the potpourri of NationStates and each of their unique problems and circumstances. Unless UN member nations are allowed to stand in defiance of such power, all is lost.

The Kingdom of Brandoj implores a rejection of this bill.

Respectfully,

King of Brandoj
Kingdom of Brandoj

This nation is glad and thankful for this resolution, it seems to be well thought out, and clearly worded. I have been extremely tired of dumb resolutions being brought to the voting docket and consistently voted in. As my other nation that is in the UN I will certainly vote for this bill, which promises to set a concrete foundation before others could find loopholes and ways to disrupt a large party of others nations. I do have one small question however. It says in Article one that "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." I believe that the legal powers of the nation include what it can do (humanly) to its citizens. For instance, my feelings towards a certain gay rights resolution might not be what the majority of the people voted on. Can I not with this resolution go back on that? Now I do realize that you stipulate that I must still allow the resolutions to be followed because of UN Resolutions are subject to immunity. But if I am a sovereign nation, who can legalize what I wish, or choose not too... well you can see that it creates a mild paradox. Anyways, sorry I couldn't throw that one up when this bill was being made, but the thought just occurred to me.
-And just remember that there is always more... Booyah For All!

The UN definitely needs to have some restraint. Legalize Prostitution? Save the forests of the world? Rediculous! Both of these were domestic issues for each NationState, but were passed simply because a majority of people liked the idea and did not respect the boundaries of UN power.

This bill does little to address these problems. Most of the bill simply establishes rules of conduct between NationSates without holding the UN accountable.
"This bill does little to address these problems" ... Actually, Brandoj, this bill does pretty much nothing to address those problems. It can't address those problems without overturning game mechanics. Since we didn't want this resolution deleted outright (like every other repeal or amend proposal ever written), we had to work with the UN we have.

This is the NationStates United Nations, O King. We weren't around when the building was build, we weren't around when the electronic voting system we've all grown to despise was enacted. We didn't design the place; Secretary General Emeritus Max Barry did. HE set up the rules, HE defined the basics of how things worked, and then he faded quietly into the background. You, me, and every other nation with a blue banner under their flag, agreed to the Barry provisions when we moved in here. We're stuck with it, no matter how many times we try to legislate around it.

We didn't address those problems, O King, because by definition we can't. Therefore, we must work with the UN we have as best we can, or move on. Only you can choose your nation's path. As long as you walk the UN road, the UN shall lead the way.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

I agree...I feel as if this resolution does very little to anything. It is purely legal jibber jabber that serves no purpose--other than being a proposal on the floor of the UN. Maybe if it were something that actually refined or changed "international law" instead of summarizing it and letting it take up yet more space on the already massive UN list of laws, it would be more sucsessful. One could propose an ACTUAL resolution with the purpose to resolve something. I will vote down the proposal becasue it serves no purpose, and I encourage others to do likewise becasue it is simply is a waste of paper, and SHOULD be in violation of the the previous "Save the Forests" amendment.

Josiah Forrester, Secretay of International Affairs and UN representative for the Dominion of Gramercy Prime.

I'm not sure I'm entirely making sense of your argument abainst the resolution. I don't think that it's that bad of an idea to have a resolution to put forth (in some fairly specific language) what UN rules and expectations are. Back when the "Gay Rights" resolution was passed there were many people who wanted it somehow repealed. All the arguments for and against seemed to boil down to some of the things which are covered in this resolution. I'm sure the people discussing that issue would have been very glad to have this resolution on the books.

-Mitae

The Genesis of Rights and Duties of UN States

I can't claim credit for a lot of this material. The original draft of this document was a very lightly adapted copy of an early draft from the real world United Nations, called "A Declaration on Rights and Duties of the United Nations." It started with 14 articles, including a significant one on human rights and quite a bit more on the topic of war. I'm sorry to say I've lost the original link, and www.un.org is just a bit too sweeping for me to find it again.

In this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2616151), several nations provided input and suggestions over a three day period. My especial thanks go to Greesnpoint, Monocia, Nibbleton, Heru Ur, New Eriu, and Oppressed Possums, for their input and assistance. We ended up stripping away the human rights bit and adapting it more to the world of NationStates. Shortly afterwards, I completely rewrote the descriptive bit at the top (removing at least four "Whereas" statements, and updated the entire section on War to adapt to the fact that NationStates wars are fought only by mutual agreement. I rearranged it into the three relevant sections, and posted the final version.

Later that evening, I submitted the reformatted proposal, and posted this topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900). Unfortunately, I made a strategic blunder in timing and campaigning, and it died with a respectable but unsatisfactory number of approvals. Foolishly, I repeated the mistake for the second pass, and it too died with perhaps double the approvals of the first attempt. But the third time, we'll make it happen, by golly. Thanks to some timely aid from Mikitivity (and the North Pacific (http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?act=idx) forums), the nations of Nibbleton and NewTexas, and any number of encouraging forum posts and telegrams; we managed to get the word out. Thanks also to Francos Spain, who pointed out that I misspelled the word ' proper grammer' in my campaign telegram. Dang it.

There is a direct violation of the rules for posting bills... and it is admitted by the submitter, themselves.

"5. Duplicate Proposals
Sometimes you'll make the same proposal twice in a row - whether by accident or for your own strange purposes. If this happens, at least one of them gets deleted - more if they're breaking other rules or blatantly spam." (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286)

That was a rule posted by "Enodia" on the topic of proposals! This is more than a worthless bill, it breaks the rules!

I'm not sure I'm entirely making sense of your argument abainst the resolution.

I agree. Though I think the reason we can't really understand the spokesperson from Gramercy Prime's arguement is because he / she really did nothing but jibber jabber.

I mean, get real. This proposal isn't a waste of trees / paper. How many of you bother to print hard copies of anything that this UN forum discusses?

Right, I see a total of 19 nations out of 1,000s. It is a lame arguement.

I don't think that it's that bad of an idea to have a resolution to put forth (in some fairly specific language) what UN rules and expectations are. Back when the "Gay Rights" resolution was passed there were many people who wanted it somehow repealed. All the arguments for and against seemed to boil down to some of the things which are covered in this resolution. I'm sure the people discussing that issue would have been very glad to have this resolution on the books.

-Mitae

Well said! That is exactly why my Confederation supports this resolution.

But there is one logical reason to vote against it. If you are a non-democratic society (read dictatorship) and if you seek to use the UN to enforce your will on other nations, because you know you can't do it any other way, then it is critical to your plans for global domination that the UN remain unorganized and distracted by debating the rights and duties of UN member states over and over again.

10kMichael

"5. Duplicate Proposals
Sometimes you'll make the same proposal twice in a row - whether by accident or for your own strange purposes. If this happens, at least one of them gets deleted - more if they're breaking other rules or blatantly spam." (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286)

That was a rule posted by "Enodia" on the topic of proposals! This is more than a worthless bill, it breaks the rules!

Actually if you would bother to read instead of skim the forums, you'd see that Enodia also encouraged the Frisbeeterian Ambassador to repost this proposal after the server accidently deleted it.

Don't be so quick to jump the gun and cry foul, Frisbeeteria not only drafted an excellent resolution, but did so in a manner that many of us hope will become the norm and not the exception: i.e. within all the rules.

10kMichael

In other words, the prostitution legalization effort was merely the first means for the Joccian government to justify rounding up people and registering them
Unfortunatly, this is incorrect (as is the term "Whore war") Joccia's alternate insight on the Euthanasia act began as early as the resoloution of the Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill, just before it passed. The 'Whore war' with regards to prostitution began after the euthanization of the mentally ill.

I disagree. Just because sovereignty is not documented does not mean that it is not practiced nor does it not exist.
Incorrect. You gave up your rights to soverenty when you joined the UN. Please go over the UN portion of the NationStates FAQ and you'll see that I'm right. while soverenty exists, soverenty within the UN does not.
I will vote against this proposal on the grounds that it does nothing.
Fris - I told you so ;)

Art 3 is saying that a Nation can not control their own economy! [/qruote]
Article 3 is that a nation does not have the right to interfere with SOMEONE ELSE's economy.
[quote]Art. 2 is saying that creaters and highly popular deliagates have 'ultimate' power. It is also saying that you can be kicked out of your territory just because the top UN member says so. It also takes away power from small Nations that are UN deliagetes.
Sir or madam, please reread it again. Each NationState has exclusive rights to THEIR OWN terirory. again, that means that no other nation has the rights to do anything to your territory without your permission.
Art 4 is not real because we can not have an 'armed attack; there was a question on war and the creater of this site said that war is not valid... it can not happen!
It's a roleplay device.
We can not even protect ourselves form rebellion! They can plot rebellion from right under our noses and we can not do anything!
*rolls eyes* Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory OF ANOTHER NationState. In other words, you can do what you like in your own territory, but you cannot incite rebellion in someone else's NationState.

I'm goning to skip over the rest because its more or less the same thing where you are not reading the issue at all
Act. 10 says that we must change out selves to fit the UN? That says the UN is an 'own all' force!
Exactly. If you are a UN member you have to conform to UN law This is the way it currently is, this merely re-itifies it. This has no efect on you if you are not a un member.
This article makes each UN legislation enforcable by international law. If you are a member of the UN you can no longer ignore such legislation as legalization of prostitution.
that's right. This is the way it currently is in the UN but most people ignore that fact. This merely points it out to people who wern't aware of that fact.

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

Unfortunatly, this is incorrect (as is the term "Whore war") Joccia's alternate insight on the Euthanasia act began as early as the resoloution of the Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill, just before it passed. The 'Whore war' with regards to prostitution began after the euthanization of the mentally ill.

I disagree. Just because sovereignty is not documented does not mean that it is not practiced nor does it not exist.

Incorrect. You gave up your rights to soverenty when you joined the UN. Please go over the UN portion of the NationStates FAQ and you'll see that I'm right. while soverenty exists, soverenty within the UN does not.


I disagree with your opinions on the matter.

As long as actions, such as those that took place in Joccia, are tolerated by this body, all our nations still retain our sovereignty while remaining in the United Nations. I'm talking about the practices of this body, not the mere letter of international law.

Furthermore, if any nation disagrees with UN policies, it is free to leave. The treaties we enter into when we join the UN are at best temporary (or as illustrated by Joccia, subject to very liberal and imaginative re-interpetation).

And for the record, I too dislike the term "Whore War". The Joccians executed far more than prostitutes, and if you'll look at my nation's statements over the past month, you'll see that we've not singled out just the Joccian crimes against prostitutes, but instead have shown a legitimate concern of their actions towards many of their minority and politically disenfrancished populations.

---

As for calling my statements incorrect, you certainly may continue to do as you please, but stating that an opinion is incorrect is a far cry from making it so. In a world where nations clearly pull different meanings from what appear to be simple resolutions, I think it is unwise to be so quick to pass judgement on matters of persepctive. I certainly will make it a practice to remind myself of this in the future, for fear of misrepresenting my nation.

10kMichael

you apparently define soverenty differently than most who make this issue do.

The assumption that sovrenty means that the UN has no say on the matters of your state and that because you are a sovreign nation means you can 'ignore' whatever UN resoloution that passes is a faulty one.

If, by sovrenty, you mean cultural and social individuality, then you are correct in saying that each nation has a sovreign identity. Hoewver where UN laws override that, you have to deffer to the UN laws as long as you are a member.

Most nations who claim 'sovrenty' don't realise that, so I was obviously attacking a 'straw man' and assumed you meant something other than you did.


As far as the issue of Joccia, I merely wanted to point out that the killing of prostitutes was not even the first act of joccia's interpretation of legal law, as is commonly claimed. I DO NOT approve of Joccia's abuse of this legislature, however according to the wording and letter of the law, Joccia's abuse is, unfortunatly, valid. And since repeals are impossible, we can do nothing but cope.

It should be noted that the problems with the Euthanasia act being abused in this matter were brought up BEFORE the resooution passed. We can only learn from this mistake and ensure that we avoid loopholes in resoloutions in the future.

you apparently define soverenty differently than most who make this issue do.

As far as the issue of Joccia, I merely wanted to point out that the killing of prostitutes was not even the first act of joccia's interpretation of legal law, as is commonly claimed. I DO NOT approve of Joccia's abuse of this legislature, however according to the wording and letter of the law, Joccia's abuse is, unfortunatly, valid. And since repeals are impossible, we can do nothing but cope.

It should be noted that the problems with the Euthanasia act being abused in this matter were brought up BEFORE the resooution passed. We can only learn from this mistake and ensure that we avoid loopholes in resoloutions in the future.

First, I'm not convinced that either one of us is qualified to pass judgement on what "most us of" thinks. Or at least, I hardly feel confident enough to pretend that I can read the minds of over 30,000 nations. Perhaps you can though.

Now as for the Joccia issue, it is very relevant to the interpetation of Article 11 of the Rights and Duties resolution. My nation does not consider Joccia's abuse of any of the Human Rights resolutions that have been adopted by the UN to be legal for the simple reason that most of these resolutions have been discussed and debated in great detail here in this forum. It is a matter of record as to what the interpetation of the letter of the law is. Killing people when the debate was explicit about its desire to protect them is clearly much more than a loophole.

And this is where in my not so humble opinion, Article 11 comes into play. If a majority of UN members agree with my nation's official position concerning the Joccian Genocide (recall that my nation joined the non-UN member states that placed a trade embargo on Joccia), would it be possible for the UN force Joccia into compliance?

This is a serious question. If the UN can't force Joccia into compliance, then this body respects its sovereign right to pick and choose which international obligations it wishes to honor without any consequence. If the UN can force Joccia into compliance via Article 11 implementation, then your government's opinion with respect to sovereignty holds true.

Which do you think is the case? Naturally I'd like to extend my question to all nations.

10kMichael

Well, I do think that yes, while the game mechanics dont allow for debate and the choice of whether to follow UN Resolutions or not, there is still much that can be done to improve this anyway.

Again, I agree that this resolution does nothing besides go into some legal statements about the UN. It does not help improve the workings of international law, and certainly does not set any real guidelines.

Also, I must say that legislations such as Legalizing Prostitution, Saving Forests, and proposals of that nature should not even get to chance to be voted on in my opinion. I think we are here to debate international law, laws which effect how member nations interact with one another. They should be more than just laws that one nation wants to see everyone enact in their countries. It does nothing but some person imposing their will on everyone in the UN, and does not help with the greater international community.

If anything, perhaps a proposal stating some guidelines defining what specifically is well thought out proposal and what is not would work better. Personally, I would say that a good proposal to vote on would be one that would define international affairs between nations. Things such as Commerce and Trade and International Rules of War would be something worthwhile. Things such as Saving the Forests and whatnot would be defined as Intra-national laws. These kinds of laws would only effect an individual law of each nation, and should be something to be left for each nation to decide individually without intervention from the UN.

Killing people when the debate was explicit about its desire to protect them is clearly much more than a loophole.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. He didn't use the prostitution act to justify his killing of prostitutes. It was a loophole in the Euthanasia bill that allowed him to pretty much kill whoever he wanted as long as he did it the right way.

If a majority of UN members agree with my nation's official position concerning the Joccian Genocide ... would it be possible for the UN force Joccia into compliance?

Joccia has complied with UN Legislature as written. While I dislike it, he has completely complied in accordance with international law. The Euthanasia Legislation was known to have this loophole, yet it passed anyways. Article 11 will not change that fact.

If the UN can't force Joccia into compliance, then this body respects its sovereign right to pick and choose which international obligations it wishes to honor without any consequence.

They CAN enfoce it if you pick and choose which laws you like and dislike. Joccia IS acting under international law as defined by the Euthanasia act.

If the UN can force Joccia into compliance via Article 11 implementation, then your government's opinion with respect to sovereignty holds true.

Joccia is in compliance with the current Euthanasia act and Article 11.

that said, I wasn't aware there was a trade embargo movement against Joccia. Provided that it does not break any other international laws I shall pass this idea on to our elected king. New Eriu's official position is we do not want to co-operate with Joccia except by the minimal level. However, while we disagree with Joccia's wanton disregard for life, Joccia IS acting in compliance with the Euthanasia Act as written.

This proposal is a Trojan horse. It starts out well in Article 1 with what seems to be an endorsement of the concept of national sovereignty, but it then immediately adds a critical qualifier with Article 2's reference to immunities and international law. By its end, Articles 10 and 11 are making it perfectly clear that this is a declaration of global supremacy. Your nation-state, under the ideas that make up this resolution, is nothing more than a department of the UN. You cease to be a national leader and become a regional administrator for a self-proclaimed imperial power.

As we see it, the UN's first purpose is to provide a forum in which to discuss issues of global impact and come to mutually agreeable solutions where possible. It is not a planetary government, and its function is not to seize sovereignty from its members. It may declare its authority to do so. This proposal essentially is such a declaration. A false unilateral claim to the right to rule, however, does not make it so. There is no such thing as the "international law" the proposal declares supreme, there are only UN resolutions, and despite the pretense they are superior to national law, they are not, and in a very real sense they cannot be.

The only grace of this proposal is that it does not provide an enforcement mechanism through which to force national subordination to its grandiose claim of authorizing what amounts to a global state. We reject its improper, aggressive pretension to supplant our sovereignty with that of the UN, we vote against it, we encourage others to do the same, and we assure our fellow UN members that whether or not it is adopted we do not agree to give up our right to manage our own national affairs as we choose. Some may say we must then resign from the UN. They can wish in one hand and spit in the other.

There is no such thing as the "international law" the proposal declares supreme, there are only UN resolutions, and despite the pretense they are superior to national law, they are not, and in a very real sense they cannot be.
This quoted portion is the crux of your argument, as I read it. If you can provide legal justification for this in NationStates terms, as opposed to wishful thinking on your part, I'll turn around and vote against my own proposal.

This is no Trojan Horse. It states, in clear and unambiguous terms, that UN law takes precedence over national law. Which it most clearly and unambiguously does. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, and wait for the Compliance Ministry to not adjust your national identity, Mirepoix.

This proposal is a Trojan horse. It starts out well in Article 1 with what seems to be an endorsement of the concept of national sovereignty, but it then immediately adds a critical qualifier with Article 2's reference to immunities and international law. By its end, Articles 10 and 11 are making it perfectly clear that this is a declaration of global supremacy. Your nation-state, under the ideas that make up this resolution, is nothing more than a department of the UN. You cease to be a national leader and become a regional administrator for a self-proclaimed imperial power.

As we see it, the UN's first purpose is to provide a forum in which to discuss issues of global impact and come to mutually agreeable solutions where possible. It is not a planetary government, and its function is not to seize sovereignty from its members. It may declare its authority to do so. This proposal essentially is such a declaration. A false unilateral claim to the right to rule, however, does not make it so. There is no such thing as the "international law" the proposal declares supreme, there are only UN resolutions, and despite the pretense they are superior to national law, they are not, and in a very real sense they cannot be.

The only grace of this proposal is that it does not provide an enforcement mechanism through which to force national subordination to its grandiose claim of authorizing what amounts to a global state. We reject its improper, aggressive pretension to supplant our sovereignty with that of the UN, we vote against it, we encourage others to do the same, and we assure our fellow UN members that whether or not it is adopted we do not agree to give up our right to manage our own national affairs as we choose. Some may say we must then resign from the UN. They can wish in one hand and spit in the other.

This is exactly correct. This proposal creates a UN superstate where the 37,000 nations which make up the UN just become mere counties - Local government ruled by a few very powerful UN delegates.

Frisbeeteria comments in the previous post is a clear "Like it or stick it up your arse" viewpoint and he is one that is not for budging or comprimise. The UN is something that can never exist in the real world as nation states would not allow a unelected quango of a few delegates with friends in high places to dictate national law. Thus this proposal, and the UN, is fatally flawed. Since I have been in the UN it has served to only place pointless laws onto my country which are not needed and unnecessary and until the game mechanics allow a system where countries can opt out of ridiculous lesiglation, such as the previous Forest proposal, Prostitution (the list goes on - almost all that hvae ever been passed) The Yid Army will no longer be part of the UN. I tender my resignation immediatly so the UN can no longer harm my nation. I encourage all other UN nations who do not wish to be a local mayor running his own county within the UN to do the same.

This proposal creates a UN superstate where the 37,000 nations which make up the UN just become mere counties - Local government ruled by a few very powerful UN delegates.

Frisbeeteria comments in the previous post is a clear "Like it or stick it up your arse" viewpoint and he is one that is not for budging or comprimise.
This proposal does not create such a condition. It already exists, like it or not. Nothing in this proposal alters game rules one iota.

You're right. I'm not budging or compromising. No one, including the Yid Army, has yet presented any argument against this bill that does not invoke the weak and pointless real world UN, along with some posturing about how things should work in the world of NationStates. I see no reason to alter my position unless or until someone can point out NationStates reasons why it won't work.

This proposal creates a UN superstate where the 37,000 nations which make up the UN just become mere counties - Local government ruled by a few very powerful UN delegates.

Frisbeeteria comments in the previous post is a clear "Like it or stick it up your arse" viewpoint and he is one that is not for budging or comprimise.
This proposal does not create such a condition. It already exists, like it or not. Nothing in this proposal alters game rules one iota.

You're right. I'm not budging or compromising. No one, including the Yid Army, has yet presented any argument against this bill that does not invoke the weak and pointless real world UN, along with some posturing about how things should work in the world of NationStates. I see no reason to alter my position unless or until someone can point out NationStates reasons why it won't work.


Well done Frisbeeteria you finally got your proposal through and it is winning, i hope it passes i have endorsed it every time on the list proposals list :)

We are against it because it prohibits unrequested interferance in other nation's affairs. We even have a whole government ministry for this!

If the UN can't force Joccia into compliance, then this body respects its sovereign right to pick and choose which international obligations it wishes to honor without any consequence.

They CAN enfoce it if you pick and choose which laws you like and dislike. Joccia IS acting under international law as defined by the Euthanasia act.

So let me get this straight. In one sentence you advocate that the UN can enforce its will, even if you can pick and choose which laws you like and dislike?

Um, excuse me, but what if my nation decides then that Article 3 doesn't apply to my Confederation by re-interpetting the written language despite a record of clear debate? You wish to state that the UN will is still being enforced?

This sounds a lot like eating your cake and having it too. If you eat your cake, you can't save it for later. Unless of course you can bend the laws of physics and have it both ways, hmmmmm.

This proposal is a Trojan horse. It starts out well in Article 1 with what seems to be an endorsement of the concept of national sovereignty, but it then immediately adds a critical qualifier with Article 2's reference to immunities and international law. By its end, Articles 10 and 11 are making it perfectly clear that this is a declaration of global supremacy. Your nation-state, under the ideas that make up this resolution, is nothing more than a department of the UN. You cease to be a national leader and become a regional administrator for a self-proclaimed imperial power.

As we see it, the UN's first purpose is to provide a forum in which to discuss issues of global impact and come to mutually agreeable solutions where possible. It is not a planetary government, and its function is not to seize sovereignty from its members. It may declare its authority to do so. This proposal essentially is such a declaration. A false unilateral claim to the right to rule, however, does not make it so. There is no such thing as the "international law" the proposal declares supreme, there are only UN resolutions, and despite the pretense they are superior to national law, they are not, and in a very real sense they cannot be.

The only grace of this proposal is that it does not provide an enforcement mechanism through which to force national subordination to its grandiose claim of authorizing what amounts to a global state. We reject its improper, aggressive pretension to supplant our sovereignty with that of the UN, we vote against it, we encourage others to do the same, and we assure our fellow UN members that whether or not it is adopted we do not agree to give up our right to manage our own national affairs as we choose. Some may say we must then resign from the UN. They can wish in one hand and spit in the other.

I could not agree more with this. Unfortunately I don't think this proposal will be voted down, as with most proposals here in the UN. Which again, as this proposal suggests, allows any idea for a resolution to come up, get enough delegates, and be forced upon every UN member now matter how minute or how much it would violate national sovereignty.

I could not agree more with this. Unfortunately I don't think this proposal will be voted down, as with most proposals here in the UN.

People, a draft article was placed on this very forum for debate nearly a week before it was put on the proposals list. You had the chance to address concerns and call to ammend issues and make all these comments before it even entered the proposal stage.

NO ONE stepped up with these concerns until it hit quorum, by which time it's altogether too late to make changes. Everyone who posted until it hit quorum was full of praise for this article.

If you do not participate with the system, don't complain about the results.


As had been said, this article does not change the way the UN works AT ALL, merely clarifies as one document what our rights and duties are for those who are unable to read between the lines.


Independant sovrenty of countries does not exist within the UN. You do not have the right to 'pick and choose' between resoloutions. It's an all or nothing deal, and you were told this when you joined the UN. You chose to join anyways.

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

Also, the fact that I haven't yet seen a resolution that has been voted down probably influences this as well. Every time a proposal becomes a resolution, it seems to automattically win. So usually there is a relatively minor issue and you dont wanna have it, then you're basically told "well, Tough Luck."
Hippo

Also, I must say that legislations such as Legalizing Prostitution, Saving Forests, and proposals of that nature should not even get to chance to be voted on in my opinion. I think we are here to debate international law, laws which effect how member nations interact with one another. They should be more than just laws that one nation wants to see everyone enact in their countries. It does nothing but some person imposing their will on everyone in the UN, and does not help with the greater international community.

If anything, perhaps a proposal stating some guidelines defining what specifically is well thought out proposal and what is not would work better. Personally, I would say that a good proposal to vote on would be one that would define international affairs between nations. Things such as Commerce and Trade and International Rules of War would be something worthwhile. Things such as Saving the Forests and whatnot would be defined as Intra-national laws. These kinds of laws would only effect an individual law of each nation, and should be something to be left for each nation to decide individually without intervention from the UN.

I'm afraid that the several nations making this argument based upon confusion about the conection between the real U.N and NationStates's U.N
the real U.N is limeted to the relm of international relations in it's power because other international orginizations exist to control other issues (NATO for military alliances in the North Atlantic, the WTO for "free trade," various treaties {e.g. the Kyoto confrence} to regulate the environmental problems of the world and so on.) In NationStates no such treaties can be inforced. Though I admit that the concept of FORCED LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION is realy, realy stupid, the idea of saved forests is a noble one. I am aware that the NationStates world is not ment to simulate a real planet, but you must surely know what effect rainforest preservation would have on the real environment and it should comfort us all to know that so many people care about these real problems. NationStates is a simulation of humankind and any issue real to us should be real here. Ho Chi Minh had his secrete meetings of the Communist/Scocialist party of France, NationStates is such a meeting and I for one am thankfull that it no longer must hide in the shadows.
As for the assertion that the nations have no choice but to comply with the "Silly Forced Law Resolutions" it now says in the very resolution that we debate over that
MEMBERSHIP IN THE U.N IS OPTIONAL
I aknoledge the fact that only liberal resolutions get to the floor in the fist place (which makes one wonder about the simpathys of our "Fair and Balanced" Supreme Court of NationStates, the Moderators and Administators,) but we must respect the wishes of the U.N. If our International body goes unregulated then democracy in its purest and most beautiful form may not perish from the Internet.

If one wishes a stricter resolution then one can propose one onesself if not, do not blame the brave few who dare put their dreams up to public scutiny. They are the most honerable of NationSate leaders.

This is Bard de Millenianeuf, the little guy, singing off.

(which makes one wonder about the simpathys of our "Fair and Balanced" Supreme Court of NationStates, the Moderators and Administators,)
You're fairly new, so I'll cut you a bit of slack ... but not much. Mods and Admins don't have a thing with bringing proposals to the floor. Regional Delegates do. If you want proposals that better reflect your interests, found or join regions that reflect your point of view and get a Delegate who will participate. I'm getting really tired of hearing about how the Mods screw up the UN. If you have to blame somebody, look in a mirror.

Take a look at the proposal up for a vote. It's got a title ...

Rights and Duties of UN States

You don't get one without the other. Quit blaming others and do something about it yourself.

The floor recognises the representative from Bootai-Bootai.

*The representative stands*

Greatings, my fellow UN representatives, from the beautiful tropical socially-progressive insignificant nation of Bootai-Bootai. When airplanes or ships pass us, the typical reaction is "What was that?," similar to when you hit a small pothole while driving. I am truly honored to speak to you, given that this is the first time I have had the pleasure of addressing the General Assembly. Please bring your family and visit our splendid nation, where the majestic mandrill runs free and wild.

*There is a very awkward silence while women with large fake smiles in colorful native costume begin to distribute tourism pamphlets to the UN representatives, who exchange concerned and embaresed glances. After they are finished, the representative continues.*

Concerning the resolution on the floor- though we are a young nation, we think that in light of our limited experience with this game (what, a game?...) the legislation in its clarification of the UN's powers has struck a reasonable balance between self-determination for the individual nationstates and international law and governance. Of course, as it is currently, the UN cannot be rendered completely impotent. If this were so, then there would its primary function of passing binding "resolutions" (more like legislation, if you ask me...) would be useless. However, it would hopefully prevent some of the arguably more excessive resolutions, such as the banning of woodchipping (???) and the legalisation of prostitution. I mean, it seems like the point of this game is to make a nation in your image, and such resolutions affect the internal affairs of the nations way too much. The weaknesses of the resolution are in my opinion that its language is too weak, and it does not really change anything...

I am wondering if the mechanics of the UN should not be radically altered- perhaps doing away with the binding resolution system altogether, and give each individual nation the choice to ratify passed resolutions, and having each nation's status in the UN be altered according to whether or not nations ratify resolutions. Of course, this goes way beyond the resolution process.

In brief, it is just that I don't like the current choice now between either being completely isolated and seperate from the internationally community or being subject to legislation that potentially can control every single little issue, such as prostitution or the woodchipping industry. Ultimately, it has to do with how you think the game should run and what you think the game mechanics should be. If you think that there should be a sortof "ubergovernment" that determines some parts of nation's policies, fine- that's a valid opinion, but it's not mine.

If nothing else, I would appreciate it if for the current resolution and for future resolutions people would think about what they believe the UN's jurisdiction should be and what effect the passage of the resolution would have before they pushed the "Vote For" link, since it seems that no resolution in the past has ever been voted down.

Thank you for your attention. And please consider Bootai-Bootai for your next family vacation!

*The representative returns to his seat.*

The only reason I can find not to vote ‘yes’ is that this proposal takes away something we don’t have anyway.

It has my full support.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

If nothing else, I would appreciate it if for the current resolution and for future resolutions people would think about what they believe the UN's jurisdiction should be and what effect the passage of the resolution would have before they pushed the "Vote For" link, since it seems that no resolution in the past has ever been voted down.

Thank you for your attention. And please consider Bootai-Bootai for your next family vacation!

*The representative returns to his seat.*
Many past resolutions have been voted down. Your delegate is too young to remember.

At least one of the articles is fatally flawed.

"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 [ignoring the offender]."

While it would be lovely to recognize war only as a consensual act between two nations, it is important to realize that wars have, in the electrical age and onward, rarely been fought by mutual declaration. There have been sneak attacks, devastating air, armor and artillery attacks that attempt to shock and demoralize the government, military and populace of the target nation. In recognizing this, we become able to see such unwarranted attacks as acts of war.

I urge those of you who are UN members to vote against this poorly articulated resolution with its asinine phrasing.

Many past resolutions have been voted down. Your delegate is too young to remember.

The representative from Bootai-Bootai thanks the representative from Germany and France for the polite clarification.

Section 1, article 3 is unnacceptable. Take the word Economic out of the sentence. If this passes, we will happily ignore that article.

Section 1, article 3 is unnacceptable. Take the word Economic out of the sentence. If this passes, we will happily ignore that article.
I don't understand your objection, Carpage. Could you explain, please? I don't see it imposing anything on your nation, only forbidding your attempting to impose your economic system on their nation. What am I missing?

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.

I support the UN resolution on member states rights and duties. I'm impressed in that the resolution appears to have been written by someone with knowledge of the American legal system and its rules of procedure. I commend the author for making use of that base of knowledge.

Just one area where I have a disagreement - in Article 5, the resolution states that an act of war shall be consensual. Often wars are not the result of two parties agreeing to have a war beforehand, but rather a pre-emptive or surprise attack by one nation on another.

Simply put, war is not consensual in many cases and that fact cannot be changed by an act of legislation.

Office of the Foreign Minister
Commonwealth of Rodrigo Commerce

My only question is why it is called "Rights and Duties of UN States", yet it is "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." To me, those two sentences seem contradictory.

How much will this force Political Freedom down?

From the responses I see hear, most people are concerned that the resolution restricts national sovereignty too much, but I read it as having putting national sovereignty above the concept of individual rights, since no actual protections of human rights were included. It seemed to say nations could do anything at all they want with their citizens. Am I missing something?

Am I missing something?
Maybe. Articles 2 and 3 explicitly recognize other UN proposals that voerride Article 1.

Since Human Rights have already been addressed in multiple earlier resolution, there was no need to define them here. No single proposal can be all inclusive, so we concentrated on the defining lines between nations, other nations, and the UN. This does not reduce or remove individual rights in any way - it just doesn't mention them.

ooc:I would have posted in the earlier phases but i'm kinda busy and only joined nationstates about 2 weeks ago :D also im not sure which nation im logged in as atm(i have one un and one non-un) so bear with me if its the wrong one.

also i thank you for being careful about the grammer and spelling in your document. im getting tired of reading documents with half a dozen typos and sentences ending in prepositions and ive only been here 2 weeks.

ic: the basic idea of article 5 is that you have the option to ignore anyone who declares war on you. all three sentences, if you look closely are statements. not orders or requirements, however article 8 says:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5."

focus for one moment on the last few words "acting in violation of article 5" it is in fact impossible to act in violation of something that isnt telling you to do anything. 8) (above also goes for article 7)

also there is this(from article 5)

"Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war"

The problem with this statement is that it doesnt say that the nationstates responding to the declaration of war can only act against nation A(the one declaring war and being ignored) im sure it wasnt your intent for nations to be given the right to declare war on nation B(the one ignoring A) just because they ignore nation A. 8)

i dont agree with the everything in the document, however, there arent very many actual flaws, and i am having to work hard to find even these ones. any of my other problems with the document are simply not liking the implications of some of the articles and, at this point totally irrelevant as they are not going the sway the veiws of thousands of nations. I just thought id point out any flaws i could find as that is the point of this thread.

ooc: i know youre gonna call me for bad grammer or not capitalizing stuff or typos or something...but this isnt a legal document :P

if you look closely are statements. not orders or requirements, however article 8 says:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5."

focus for one moment on the last few words "acting in violation of article 5" it is in fact impossible to act in violation of something that isnt telling you to do anything. 8)
The resolution states that the member nations have a Duty to do these things. Regardless of that fact, there will nonetheless always be transgressors who fail to obey these Duties. Articles 6, 7, and 8 provide guidelines for what to do in the event of transgressions of this sort. If you can't prevent it, at least you can be prepared for it.

i know youre gonna call me for bad grammer or not capitalizing stuff or typos or something
Only if you post a resolution that way. Your points were quite clear and answerable, so a bit of grammar slippage is acceptable. :)

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BAD RESOLUTION THAT SHOULD NOT BE VOTED FOR BECAUSE IT IS CONTRADICTORY OF ITSELF. IN THE FIRST LINE UNDER THE TITLE IT STATES "A RESOLUTION TO RESTRICT POLITICAL FREEDOMS IN THE INTEREST OF LAW AND ORDER".

NOW I MAY ONLY BE A KID BUT I WOULD RATHER HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM COINCIDE WITH LAW AND ORDER, NOT HAVE EVERY CHOICE I HAVE MADE FOR ME BY THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN.

THIS RESOLUTION CONTRADICTS ITSELF IN SECTION ONE ARTICLE ONE WHERE IT STATES CLEARLY THAT " EVERY UN MEMBER STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENCE AND HENCE TO EXIST FREELY WITHOUT DICTATION". YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

ALSO THIS RESOLUTION TALKS ABOUT THE WAY WAR SHOULD BE, BUT SAYS NOTHING ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR WAR. WHAT IF A FEW NATIONS THAT EITHER ARE NOT IN THE UN WHEN THIS RESOLUTION WAS MADE OR DECIDE TO IGNORE IT, INVADE YOUR REGION, WHAT THEN?

THIS ESOLUTION SHOULD NEVER HAVE MADE IT'S WAY PAST A PROPOSAL AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DELEGATES HAVE FAILED US ON THIS ONE.

My only question is why it is called "Rights and Duties of UN States", yet it is "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." To me, those two sentences seem contradictory.
First, I didn't choose the effects of Political Stability. They're hard coded. It seemed like the best way to code this (it's not about Free Trade or Human Rights, so we had to go with something.)

Second, I think the coding is reasonable. You sacrifice some of your freedoms to allow the UN access to your laws. That access can reasonably be seen as police powers. As to the specifics, I don't actually know. It's coded as Significant, which is the middle range. I'm guessing Strong is 3, Significant is 2, and Mild is 1. If anyone knows the actual effects, feel free to correct me.

ALSO THIS RESOLUTION TALKS ABOUT THE WAY WAR SHOULD BE, BUT SAYS NOTHING ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR WAR. WHAT IF A FEW NATIONS THAT EITHER ARE NOT IN THE UN WHEN THIS RESOLUTION WAS MADE OR DECIDE TO IGNORE IT, INVADE YOUR REGION, WHAT THEN?

This resolution is talking about war between nations as roleplayed on the NationStates International Incidents board. What you're talking about is region crashing, which is something else entirely and nothing to do with war.

The Not-So-Secret History of the Idiot Godmoder Noncontinuity Omni-Repellant Eradicator Supercannon (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98922) (I.G.N.O.R.E. Supercannon)
Somebody was asking about this elsewhere. Here's the link again.

Thanks to all the forum regulars and casual readers who helped put together Rights and Duties of UN States. Thanks also to the voters who overwhelmingly approved its passage.

To those of you who voted against because you thought something was being taken away from you ... rest assured that you still have every sovereign right you had when you joined the UN. Maybe even one or two more, now that it's all said and done.

The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States thanks you for your support.

good job senator... It was a great paper

Second, I think the coding is reasonable. You sacrifice some of your freedoms to allow the UN access to your laws. That access can reasonably be seen as police powers. As to the specifics, I don't actually know. It's coded as Significant, which is the middle range. I'm guessing Strong is 3, Significant is 2, and Mild is 1. If anyone knows the actual effects, feel free to correct me.

I went from a World Benchmark to Excellent in Political freedoms... that seems a bit much...

My Political Freedoms went from Superb to Very Good, and my style went from Civil Rights Lovefest (which it had been for eons) to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy.

And I voted against the proposal.

Which makes me slightly sour.

I voted for the proposal because I agreed with the text, but now I regret doing it. It brought my political freedoms from above average to below average, even though the resolution itself had nothing to do with individual political freedoms! Even though I should have been more careful, you people have to choose the right category for the proposals, because this proposal was not matched with the right category...

I lost my "Anarchy" status, which I had worked hard to attain. It took me to a "Left Leaning College State". and because I had done a few issues before that, I am now a "Capitalizt"

*sigh* back to the old drawing board