NationStates Jolt Archive

Enforcing
In the attempt to further democracy and other freedoms, many laws have been passed by the United Nations. In theory, the United Nations is a great organization. However, it is falling apart. One problem the UN currently faces is enforcing the laws they pass. They pass laws and enact them on other nations, but many UN members ignore the rules and many of those find nations loopholes to justify their ignoring.

Therefore, this resolution shall give the UN the right to enforce the laws and raise tarrifs and other punishments against member nations that attempt to go around the laws. All loopholes found should be corrected by later resolutions to make enforcing easier.

If the nations don't like the laws so much, they should leave the UN or follow the laws, not attempt to ignore them.

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

Please vote for it. It is currently on the last page, but you can always search for it under keyword "enforcing." Please give feedback here so I can improve it if it doesn't make it the first time.

Feedback
All nations that gave feedback will be listed in this post.

With so many "interventionist" resolutions being passed in the United Nations, I do not like the idea. Whether they relate to controversial issues like prostitution, euthanasia, labor unions, alternative fuels, or healthcare, a lot of the U.N. member states--I daresay, most--are alienated by what's passed in the U.N. I think most of these issues ought to be left up to the member states themselves since, as you are proposing, they will be forced on the member states. The resolutions being passed are severly limiting whether or not a particular nation can be its own unique state.

Of course, you've noted that we all have the option of leaving the United Nations. While that's true, if all the nations that disagree with at least a handful of the decisions being forced on them were to leave, the U.N. would be left with just a small, opinionless group. I don't think that's what anybody wants.

If you wish to enforce these resolutions and keep member states from disobeying them, then I suggest you stop passing so many resolutions that go against so many viewpoints. Look at the "Legalize Prostitution" resolution. That barely passed at all. If you were to force that on everyone (while remembering that, under your reasoning, if we disagree with this, we should leave), then half of the U.N. would pack up their bags and resign from the United Nations. That type of agency does not fit with your wish for a "great organization."

So you either enforce your resolutions but keep them pro-federalist, or you do not enforce them at all.

I'm a proponent of federalism. Why? Because it works.

The UN does not have the resources to monitor the Parliments, Congresses, Peoples' Councils, Tyrannies, Dictatorships, or what have you of over 36,000 active nations. They can't sit in on every committee, monitor every diplomatic message, or put blue-helmeted guards in every police precinct.

The UN does not have the power to inflict punitive tariffs against individual nations or provide any other form of directed punishment to rulebreakers. They have no independent funding, and there has never been a resolution passed to provide them with any sort of a budget.

You can't do it.


It's against game mechanics. There will not be a UN enforecement policy because it would call for new code to create such an agency. It's not gonna happen

With all due respect,
It is quite absurd that the United Nations expects dissident, or rogue nations to comply with certain rules and regulations. The only manner in which the UN "enforces" passed laws is through a succinct telegram. This is not even an enforcement, more of a suggestion.

This is not even an enforcement, more of a suggestion.
Umm, no. The telegram informs you that the effects of the proposal have altered your nation's stats. Actual changes are made in your country's statistics.

Go to the [Submit a Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_new_proposal)] page for a list of all possible effects.

The UN does not have the power to inflict punitive tariffs against individual nations or provide any other form of directed punishment to rulebreakers. They have no independent funding, and there has never been a resolution passed to provide them with any sort of a budget.


It's against game mechanics. There will not be a UN enforecement policy because it would call for new code to create such an agency. It's not gonna happen


Is there anything to prevent the UN from suggesting a trade embargo be placed on a nation? There certainly is a UN resolution that suggests this can be done, because the No Embargoes on Medicine resolution, dated 2003.10.24, specificially states that embargoes can not extend to medicinal supplies and experts.

Since most nations are interconnected, a trade embargo could (not always) put enough pressure on a nation that is in the United Nations to come true and follow UN policy / resolutions.

[ooc: The reality is this isn't the case in NationStates. If a nation joins the UN it goes on the same ride with everybody else, but as you already pointed out, the rules imply that nations are following not only to the letter but to the end result via changes in game stats the UN resolutions. The problem really is when a nation claims one thing, but its game stats reflect the opposite, based naturally on what players are really doing. It is more a fact that people can say one thing, and do the complete opposite.]

On a point of order, the honourable representative speaks in ignorance. The United Nations automatically enforces all proposals passed - in that the economies, civil freedoms, political freedoms and suchlike of the member nations are raised and lowered as determined by the resolution passed.
While an "International Security" proposal designed to declare war on a particular nation or group thereof will not result in a state of war manifesting itself, everyone's military budgets will increase - just as an example.

On a point of order, the honourable representative speaks in ignorance.
Ummm, Graf ... there are a lot of honourable representatives here, and not a few dishonourable representative loitering about. Perhaps you could have been more specific?

On a point of order, the honourable representative speaks in ignorance.
Ummm, Graf ... there are a lot of honourable representatives here, and not a few dishonourable representative loitering about. Perhaps you could have been more specific?
My apologies. I meant the representative of "Un Peacekeepers". I couldn't see the post history when I was replying.

BUMP

A quote from the UN proposals page:

Inappropriate proposals will be removed. This includes proposals that:

suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead)
contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect
are not worthy of the UN's consideration


The last one is very interesting. Many proposals are becoming law when they should never of fallen under the remit of the UN in the first place. Why is the last clause in rejecting resolutions not being used to protect UN member states from lousy policy.

Why is the last clause in rejecting resolutions not being used to protect UN member states from lousy policy.
I suspect it's because the moderation staff doesn't want to be rightfully accused of being a Nanny State. If the proposals fit the game rules and address issues that can correctly be coded, it's OUR duty, not theirs, to reject them.

The so-called "not worthy of the UN's consideration" types would be the ones calling for legalized Dwarf Tossing, or perhaps "Make ME, JoeNation, Emperor of NationStates." Badly written environmental and social legislation should have been shouted down by the Delegates, not the Mods.

Nations cry for sovereignty, but demand the Mods protect them. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see why people who disagree with any one of the current UN resolutions stay with the UN at all. If you're at all following the spirit of the game you can't just say 'we decide to ignore that one', and your country's attributes (civility, etc) are modified regardless, so you're just fooling yourself.

The UN has passed so many sweeping resolutions about highly contentious issues that I really don't see how the government of any pseudo-realistic country could agree with everything.

I can only assume that people stay in the UN because it's 'something to do' (the reason I always hear given). Mugging people or blowing up buildings is 'something to do' too, but for some odd reason you don't see me doing them..

The UN as it exists in NationStates is a joke. The only way you even know it exists is by its passage of vague, wide-sweeping 'laws' that encroach on your country's sovereignty while adjusting your base national attributes in questionable directions.

If you like having less control over what actually happens in your country, sign up for the UN. I see no other purpose of the UN beyond that whatsoever (as it exists in NationStates, anyway).