NationStates Jolt Archive

For too long, we the member states of the UN, have worked within a system with no clear rules or regulations, creating a mess of red-tape and bureaucracy that has no clear message, nothing defining the role of the UN in this uncertain world of ours.
With this in mind, we do propose the creation of a UN charter, one that will clearly define the scope of resolutions, by enshrining within it the inalienable rights that individuals and states should have while also defining the proper manner in which member nations are to conduct themselves.

1. The role of the United Nations is:
a. To promote peace and security.
b. To further the interests of mankind.
c. To establish itself as a place of dialogue.
d. to encourage trade.

2. No law shall abrogate the rights of individuals as enumerated in:
a.The UN resolution: The Universal Bill of Rights
b.The UN resolution: Due Process
c.The UN resolution: Fair Trial

3. No law shall intrude upon the sovereignty of a member nation, this includes:
a. The rights of each member nation to choose it's own form of government.
b. The rights of each member nation to draft laws regarding their citizens so long as they conform to section 2.a The Universal Bill of Rights.
c. The territorial integrity of each member nation.

4. Any resolutions, present or future, that are found to be intruding on the sovereignty of member nations should henceforth be considered non-binding reference-document resolutions (as created in UN resolution: 'RBH' Replacement). These reference-document resolutions shall express the opinion of the UN consensus, but will be non-binding so as to limit the possibility of supplanting the rights of member nations as listed in section 3. Furthermore, these resolutions will be submitted to commitee to be rewritten as issues to be looked at by each individual member nation.

5. The UN charter will henceforth be considered the supreme law of the UN and all it's member nations.

_________


I hope everyone sees the need for this resolution, I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on this.

3. No law shall intrude upon the sovereignty of a member nation, this includes:
a. The rights of each member nation to choose it's own form of government.
b. The rights of each member nation to draft laws regarding their citizens so long as they conform to section 2.a The Universal Bill of Rights.
c. The territorial integrity of each member nation.

4. Any resolutions, present or future, that are found to be intruding on the sovereignty of member nations should henceforth be considered non-binding reference-document resolutions (as created in UN resolution: 'RBH' Replacement). These reference-document resolutions shall express the opinion of the UN consensus, but will be non-binding so as to limit the possibility of supplanting the rights of member nations as listed in section 3. Furthermore, these resolutions will be submitted to commitee to be rewritten as issues to be looked at by each individual member nation.

_________


I hope everyone sees the need for this resolution, I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on this.

I'd like to see what happens once the Rights and Duties resolution comes to a vote (should be soon). Elements of your UN Charter seem to be covered in that resolution.

-10kMichael

I'm well aware that this resolution echoes some of the elements of Freesbateria's proposal, I'd been mulling the need for a UN Charter since the legalise prostitution resolution, and after seeing the Rights and Duties proposal i realised it needed to be done, and that the Rights and Duties resolution didn't go far enough in certain areas. If it had been a resolution already I would have happily, enshrined it in the charter as Rights and Duties is very well constructed.

The problem with this charter is the word "sovereignty". Now, you and I know that the sensible definition is "I'm going to fight tooth and nail to prevent the UN from dictating domestic policy to me", but it's also a word used to mean "I want to join the UN for the benefits brought about by doing so, but not all the negatives".

Endoia: Hmm.... you may have a point, but the current problem is that the UN doesn't recognize soverignty whatsoever, as you point out it can mean "I want to join the UN for the benefits brought about by doing so, but not all the negatives". Well the negatives that we've seen are that once a nation joins the UN it is subject to a bombardment of laws that challenged a members nation right to self-governance. Under the guise of promoting democracy their is a resolution that bans all non-democracies from the UN, which as you have no doubt noticed has not come to pass. Furthermore, some resolutions, such as legalise prostitution, deal with moral issues that should not be debated by the UN but by each individual nation (for the record I support the legalisation of prostituion, and voted accordingly). The charter as it is written will allow any sort of nation to be a UN member without worrying about an usurpation of it's natinonal character, adding more different views to the UN assembly, and hopefully more inspired proposals that will change how member nations deal with each other, rather than concentrating on pushing one's world view over another.

True as far as it goes, but the last thing I want to see from a game mechanics point of view is people claiming that "The UN Charter prevents the UN from dictating my nation's gun control/drug use/gambling/prostitution policy", when the former 3 are valid categories of proposal.

I can't support this bill as it contradicts each other. The United Nations is established to unify the nations to peace, yes. But think about it. We are called upon to keep a maintenance of security for ALL people regardless of their physical, cultural, or spiritual backgrounds, but this legislation specifically allows individual states to maintain their lifestyles in their own manner. Unfortunately, there was always be meddling by other nations and create differences in opinions that will always be brought up to the International Court of Justice.

Enodia: Section 4 clearly deals with your issue of this proposal as affecting game mechanics, as it allows for any of these moral decency/drug/gun control laws to be passed, and notes it to be the UN's preferred method of dealing with the issue while being non-binding (there is even a precedence for this, as these reference-documents were created by a prior UN resolution: the 'RBH' Replacement), and further recommending that this resolution be sent to each individual nation as an issue (this can be accomplished by anyone).


Maiminde: Section 2 is put before Section 3 with good cause, as the rights of individuals are put before the rights of the nations to legislate as they will, and as such they are all protected by the Universal Bill of Rights.

True as far as it goes, but the last thing I want to see from a game mechanics point of view is people claiming that "The UN Charter prevents the UN from dictating my nation's gun control/drug use/gambling/prostitution policy", when the former 3 are valid categories of proposal.

The work around might be to still have those categories, but to automatically have proposals in certain areas (like those mentioned above) always be weak languaged.

But here is where I actually think we don't need to legislate yet checks and balances, because to date, *few* of us have shown examples of what resolutions in this "sovereign" focused UN might look like. In other words, we really are having a debate on what the UN should be. Should it be a coalition of governments that all agree to adopt a standard body of laws or should it be an organization where ideas and individual laws are discussed with the hopes that individuals will see new ideas and modify them to meet their needs. Both are legitimate views, but in the here and now, the NationStates UN is a government for governments. (Though I'd argue that is happening in Joccia is an example of a problem with that government, related to the assumption that UN resolutions are only to be enforced by the letter and not their intent. But of course, my government's gears are turning on that very issue as I type!) :D

Should it be a coalition of governments that all agree to adopt a standard body of laws or should it be an organization where ideas and individual laws are discussed with the hopes that individuals will see new ideas and modify them to meet their needs. Both are legitimate views, but in the here and now, the NationStates UN is a government for governments.
This is true, what I am trying to do here is draft a constitution of what the UN is, what it stands for, and most importantly, what it's powers are. So far, the UN has been directionless, which has been a good thing as it also has absolutely no limits on it's power (as long as they don't effect game mechanics). Every federation has powers and responsibilities that are either delegated to itself or the states that make up the union. We've been working without any clear delineation of these powers and responsibilities for far too long.

ooc: take a real world look at the US, where prostitution is legal, through brothels, in a number of states, while illegal in most.

It is a good idea, but with some holes. What if this charter gets out of hand and messes with all the nations badly, they need two chartes, one to keep the others power in check. Then, The site would have to ba altered, that would be up to Max to do. It is a good idea, and should be persued in other areas such as regon governments and differt jobs in nations. it would add a whole new demention to the game, but as max states in FAQ, "then we would have to start charging people for it." If you want, you should pursue this with max, see if you could get someone to do it for you and make it easyer. Although, there are many dimentions to this issue.

What if this charter gets out of hand and messes with all the nations badly, they need two chartes, one to keep the others power in check.
I fail to see how this charter could get out of hand, please give an example.

This charter can do nothing but help make the UN a more healthy organisation. Its risks are far out-weighed by existing threats to national legal independance.

I can see what you're getting at now, MitsubishiSonyLockheed.

bump

MitsubishiSonyLockheed telegrammed me, asking for comment. I have refrained from posting here before this, as I thought my comments might read as 'dissing the competition'. Given that, and taking this with the grain of salt due the author of a similar Resolution currently in queue, my comments:
1. The role of the United Nations is:
a. To promote peace and security.
b. To further the interests of mankind.
c. To establish itself as a place of dialogue.
d. to encourage trade.
This part is fine. There may be room for a couple of additions, but it covers the bases nicely.

2. No law shall abrogate the rights of individuals as enumerated in:
a.The UN resolution: The Universal Bill of Rights
b.The UN resolution: Due Process
c.The UN resolution: Fair Trial
I don't understand why this section is necessary. First, if you're a UN member, those already are the law. Second, why just pick those three resolutions? All of the others apply too.

3. No law shall intrude upon the sovereignty of a member nation, this includes:
a. The rights of each member nation to choose it's own form of government.
b. The rights of each member nation to draft laws regarding their citizens so long as they conform to section 2.a The Universal Bill of Rights.
c. The territorial integrity of each member nation.
Frankly, I don't think this section will be necessary assuming Rights and Duties of UN States passes. The sovereignty definitions there are somewhat more complete.

4. Any resolutions, present or future, that are found to be intruding on the sovereignty of member nations should henceforth be considered non-binding reference-document resolutions (as created in UN resolution: 'RBH' Replacement). These reference-document resolutions shall express the opinion of the UN consensus, but will be non-binding so as to limit the possibility of supplanting the rights of member nations as listed in section 3. Furthermore, these resolutions will be submitted to commitee to be rewritten as issues to be looked at by each individual member nation.
I can't see this as anything other than a request for repeal, and therefore in violation of game mechanics rules.

5. The UN charter will henceforth be considered the supreme law of the UN and all it's member nations.
This paragraph totally undoes anything that's said about sovereignty. It's covered better in Rights and Duties.

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

MSL, I think this is a good start. Obviously, I think it needs a lot of work. I'm pretty sure there have been prior attempts at writing a Charter (based on oblique comments I've seen in other topics), and it might be worthwhile to see if you can find those, or ask more experienced players to point them out.

Again, I think something this major should be a collaborative work rather than simply the authorship of a single nation. Rather than resubmit it time and again, why not run this topic on the forums and see if you can get some quality input towards a better document? Don't take the negatives personally - you know there are going to be negative comments, so you just have to write around them. And sometimes when you're right, you have to stand up to the nay-sayers and just say, "You're wrong. This is the right way." It's not easy deciding when the time is right to do that.

We're going about this all wrong, of course. Rights and Duties should have been the second proposal, right after the Charter. Instead, the UN has spent a year passing resolutions that infringe on far too much, and we're stuck working around that. It's too bad. Maybe this experience will help in the NSII UN. Let's hope so.

Membership of the Nationstate in the United Nation, is an act of the Sovereign ("Nationstate") to provide a delegate to the General Assembly. The votes of General Assembly provides a forum for communication and to reach general consensus.

However, it is impossible for the United Nations to impose its rules upon the member nations. Only economic, political, and military coersion of another member state can really influence another. If the General Assembly votes upon resolution this only reflects the general opinion of the world community.

But what is more important, within the legal context of many countries, the UN is unable to impose it's resolutions as acting law within the country. A systems of bilateral and multilateral treaties are generally used requiring RATIFICATION BY A NATIONSTATES' LEGISLATIVE BODY.

In countries which are highly religious and moralistic, recent resolutions, such as the legalization of prostitution, have threatened the political stablility of many nations. The constant advocacy of a progressive agenda upon conservative nation reduces the efficacy of United Nations body. These resolutions marginalize the legitimacy of sovereign governments and promote isolationist policies in many countries to appease the local population.

Any charter of the United Nations needs to take account of the following:
(1) Any resolution passed by the United Nations is effectively non-binding, and should act as an "additional issue" upon which the legislative body can either approve or disapprove.
(2) While member states of the United Nations are independent states and retain all soveignity, member states need to held accountable to the international community.
(3) Variance between international community consensus and a single nation state should be measured.
(4) A large discrepancy between the variance between the policies of a single nation state and the RECOMMENDED policies of the UN should have penalties:
(a) ECONOMIC SANCTIONS: reduces the economic output from the nation state (think Iraq, Iran, Cuba, USSR, N. Korea)
(b) LOSS OF POLITICAL STANDING: increases rebel activity within the company requiring a higher amount of spending on law & order due to civil discontent (think central america, america in 1960's)
(c) REDUCTION OF MILITARY READINESS: requires additional spending as a larger military budget is needed to prevent military incursions by a UN approved multinational force (e.g. the deterrent effect of a large military force... think North Korea)

We're going about this all wrong, of course. Rights and Duties should have been the second proposal, right after the Charter. Instead, the UN has spent a year passing resolutions that infringe on far too much, and we're stuck working around that. It's too bad. Maybe this experience will help in the NSII UN. Let's hope so.

Sadly, the UN has never been organized in a similar fashion. In fact, the early, pre-mod days (which I have only heard rumors of) were even worse than they are now.

As was stressed to the delegates of the Theocracy of Shirresh by the author of the Rights and Duties proprosition, that proprosition does not define or protect the soveregnty or internal law making rights of member states in any manner save for the right to have any form of government.

With this in mind, there is a need to define the rights and duties and limitations of the United Nations as a whole in the form of a charter as much as there is a need to define the right and duties of the member states.

There are perhaps problems with the charter and should be discussed so that a better charter can be written and submitted but there is a necessity for the charter in the first place.

{Tag; For Intelligence Purposes}

ooc: take a real world look at the US, where prostitution is legal, through brothels, in a number of states, while illegal in most.

[OOC: I'd rather not rely upon real world points to make an arguement. For example, I'm basically implying that Joccia (who is totally roleplaying for the purpose to illustrate a point and make the game exciting) is like Nazi Germany. This is NationStates. There was no Nazi Germany. This is NationStates. There is no United States.

That said, I think your point is somewhat ill-posed. In California, where I live, prostitution is illegal. In California, medicinal maijuana is legal. But barely, because it is against Federal law. However, as I recall, my state sued the US recently on the grounds that it was illegal for the US Federal government to regulate something that was not crossing state borders. I should say that it wasn't the state that did this, but California physicians who resented Washington D.C. telling us, California ... i.e. the purse state ... how to run our lives.

My point is, the United States has a Federal system where states have laws and rights. In NationStates's United Nations, there currently is no way to prevent some yahoo from coming and creating a resolution to legalize prostitution. Me, I think it is a wonderful idea. My nation, good again. But not for the UN ... and as a Californian, I think it would be great if the US Federal government would either stop telling my state what to do -or- if the next time LA catches on fire or that the entire state blacks out (which happens often enough) that somebody on the East Coast might give a damn.

Maybe I just made your point for you! :D If so, does this mean you are suggesting creating "reserved rights" for our NationStates? I think Frisbeeteria may have beat you to that with his excellent proposal.

I'm asking that we hold off on your proposal and focus on his, until it looks like it will pass. Then I'm guessing that a number of us would love to really work on your proposal! I know I will devote more attention to it once I get the ball rolling on my proposals related to Genocide.

And I'll plug 'em too ... I'd love to see if you feel that I'm protecting state rights while also making the UN more proactive.

10kMichael

ooc: take a real world look at the US, where prostitution is legal, through brothels, in a number of states, while illegal in most.

[OOC: I'd rather not rely upon real world points to make an arguement. For example, I'm basically implying that Joccia (who is totally roleplaying for the purpose to illustrate a point and make the game exciting) is like Nazi Germany. This is NationStates. There was no Nazi Germany. This is NationStates. There is no United States.

That said, I think your point is somewhat ill-posed. In California, where I live, prostitution is illegal. In California, medicinal maijuana is legal. But barely, because it is against Federal law. However, as I recall, my state sued the US recently on the grounds that it was illegal for the US Federal government to regulate something that was not crossing state borders. I should say that it wasn't the state that did this, but California physicians who resented Washington D.C. telling us, California ... i.e. the purse state ... how to run our lives.

My point is, the United States has a Federal system where states have laws and rights. In NationStates's United Nations, there currently is no way to prevent some yahoo from coming and creating a resolution to legalize prostitution. Me, I think it is a wonderful idea. My nation, good again. But not for the UN ... and as a Californian, I think it would be great if the US Federal government would either stop telling my state what to do -or- if the next time LA catches on fire or that the entire state blacks out (which happens often enough) that somebody on the East Coast might give a damn.

Maybe I just made your point for you! :D If so, does this mean you are suggesting creating "reserved rights" for our NationStates? I think Frisbeeteria may have beat you to that with his excellent proposal.

I'm asking that we hold off on your proposal and focus on his, until it looks like it will pass. Then I'm guessing that a number of us would love to really work on your proposal! I know I will devote more attention to it once I get the ball rolling on my proposals related to Genocide.

And I'll plug 'em too ... I'd love to see if you feel that I'm protecting state rights while also making the UN more proactive.

10kMichael

[OOC: Delete Double Post. Argh! Lag!]

3. No law shall intrude upon the sovereignty of a member nation, this includes:
a. The rights of each member nation to choose it's own form of government.
b. The rights of each member nation to draft laws regarding their citizens so long as they conform to section 2.a The Universal Bill of Rights.
c. The territorial integrity of each member nation.

4. Any resolutions, present or future, that are found to be intruding on the sovereignty of member nations should henceforth be considered non-binding reference-document resolutions (as created in UN resolution: 'RBH' Replacement). These reference-document resolutions shall express the opinion of the UN consensus, but will be non-binding so as to limit the possibility of supplanting the rights of member nations as listed in section 3. Furthermore, these resolutions will be submitted to commitee to be rewritten as issues to be looked at by each individual member nation.

_________


I hope everyone sees the need for this resolution, I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on this.

I'd like to see what happens once the Rights and Duties resolution comes to a vote (should be soon). Elements of your UN Charter seem to be covered in that resolution.

-10kMichael
True, though I'd like to see an offical charter and soemthing like the Geneva Convention.

Any charter of the United Nations needs to take account of the following:
(1) Any resolution passed by the United Nations is effectively non-binding, and should act as an "additional issue" upon which the legislative body can either approve or disapprove.


I like how this is proposed, but how can we reword this to preserve the same idea without touching upon the game mechanics issue.

What I don't like is the idea that a UN resolution passes and our stats are modified in one direction, but we can RP a different direction. While people are and should be free to take their nation in the direction they want, it would be nice if there was some reason to be in the UN other than to pretend that you aren't being pushed into a more politically centered position.


(2) While member states of the United Nations are independent states and retain all soveignity, member states need to held accountable to the international community.


Here again I agree, but how can we do this. If a nation opts to take a radical interpetation of a UN resolution that was not what a resolution said, what can we really do?


(3) Variance between international community consensus and a single nation state should be measured.
(4) A large discrepancy between the variance between the policies of a single nation state and the RECOMMENDED policies of the UN should have penalties:
(a) ECONOMIC SANCTIONS: reduces the economic output from the nation state (think Iraq, Iran, Cuba, USSR, N. Korea)


:D Here you just answered my above question. Obviously I'm favour of this, but are we to assume that the sanctions are automatic? And if so, maybe this is moving close to the game mechanics issue.

Sadly I think we'll continue to butt heads with game mechanics so long as we do anything other than pass resolutions limited to the few topics we can pull out of the drop down menus.


(b) LOSS OF POLITICAL STANDING: increases rebel activity within the company requiring a higher amount of spending on law & order due to civil discontent (think central america, america in 1960's)
(c) REDUCTION OF MILITARY READINESS: requires additional spending as a larger military budget is needed to prevent military incursions by a UN approved multinational force (e.g. the deterrent effect of a large military force... think North Korea)

Though I like the basic direction you are taking (b) with, I'm less certain about (c). What if the UN isn't in the business of making war? Heck, the UN might not be in the business of doing anything other than debating "guncontrol", "environment", "sex stuff", etc.

The truth is I feel that the way things have been going that by joining the UN we are more like individual states in a Federal government. When the Senate of that Federal government moves in one direction, we have really very little say at all beyond that.

I hope that is a fair analogy of how our UN works.

10kMichael

Frisbeeteria:
Quote:
2. No law shall abrogate the rights of individuals as enumerated in:
a.The UN resolution: The Universal Bill of Rights
b.The UN resolution: Due Process
c.The UN resolution: Fair Trial

I don't understand why this section is necessary. First, if you're a UN member, those already are the law. Second, why just pick those three resolutions? All of the others apply too.

What I am trying to do here is enshrine those three resolutions in the UN charter so that we can avoid such issues as contrary resolutions. Also this part serves as a buffer against the rights of nations which in turn limits the powers of the UN.

3. No law shall intrude upon the sovereignty of a member nation, this includes:
a. The rights of each member nation to choose it's own form of government.
b. The rights of each member nation to draft laws regarding their citizens so long as they conform to section 2.a The Universal Bill of Rights.
c. The territorial integrity of each member nation.

Frankly, I don't think this section will be necessary assuming Rights and Duties of UN States passes. The sovereignty definitions there are somewhat more complete.
I'm all in favour of Rights and Duties, but I feel that it doesn't go far enough. If (as the UN charter doesn't seem to be) it doesn't pass, I would like your assistance in redrafting the charter (something I feel is necessary for the UN to operate as a law-making entity), and enshrining Rights and Duties within (or maybe just certain elements)... something I would have liked to have done if if had already passed.

Quote:
4. Any resolutions, present or future, that are found to be intruding on the sovereignty of member nations should henceforth be considered non-binding reference-document resolutions (as created in UN resolution: 'RBH' Replacement). These reference-document resolutions shall express the opinion of the UN consensus, but will be non-binding so as to limit the possibility of supplanting the rights of member nations as listed in section 3. Furthermore, these resolutions will be submitted to commitee to be rewritten as issues to be looked at by each individual member nation.

I can't see this as anything other than a request for repeal, and therefore in violation of game mechanics rules.

It's absolutely not a repeal. What we are doing is changing the way that the UN operates, in a non-game mechanics fashion. People can still propose their 'ban gay marriage' and 'legalise prosititution' and those measures can be passed, but they will not be binding resolutions as they would be contrary to the rights of sovereignty.

Quote:
5. The UN charter will henceforth be considered the supreme law of the UN and all it's member nations.

This paragraph totally undoes anything that's said about sovereignty. It's covered better in Rights and Duties.
This is defining sovereignty for the purposes of UN lawmaking, it doesn't undo anything, rather it makes it so that no laws can be made contrary to this document.

Again, I think something this major should be a collaborative work rather than simply the authorship of a single nation. Rather than resubmit it time and again, why not run this topic on the forums and see if you can get some quality input towards a better document? Don't take the negatives personally - you know there are going to be negative comments, so you just have to write around them. And sometimes when you're right, you have to stand up to the nay-sayers and just say, "You're wrong. This is the right way." It's not easy deciding when the time is right to do that.

I wouldn't dream of taking it that way. What I have done here, is asked for peoples opinions, and attempted to correct any misconceptions that arise from reading the document in a way that is not intended. For the sake of clarity I will explain the Charter as I have written it.

First there is the preamble (my reasoning for why the charter is necessary)

Section 1 explains the role of the UN as I see it (not much discussion on this so I don't think I have to go into any detail)

Section 2 deals with the rights of individuals. This is put before the rights of nations to show that whatever the rights nations are given by the charter, that the rights of individuals (as spelled out in the referenced documents) will be deemed of higher importance. The Universal Bill of Rights spells out everything that is needed for this, and the other two resolution were added as logical conclusions to the Bill of Rights (areas that it didn't address).

Section 3 is what rights nations are accorded by the charter (as already limited by Section 2 ). The first clause is important because of game mechanics; we presently have a resolution that limits UN membership to democracies, and while championing democracy is a worthwhile cause, that resolution or any like it, would be contrary to the no messing with game mechanics rule. This would allow us to avoid that, and allow for a broader base of political based resolutions. The second clause allows individual nations to make choices of their own regarding moral decency et al, while once again referencing the basic rights of every individual. This means that nations will no longer have distasteful measures rammed down their throat while disallowing them from enacting laws that abuse the rights of it's citizens. The third clause is simply to avoid any future resolution that would divide up a country based on the tyranny of the majority.

Secition 4 is the mechanism that allows everything I've stated so far to happen, 2 and 3 are the rules, 4 is how it works. Either 2 or 3 would be a game-mechanics issue if not for section 4 which states how resolutions that run contrary to these new rights are dealt with. As we can't repeal them, nor can we disallow people to bring them to a vote, the only option is to allow them to become a suggestion, basically what the UN believes everyone should do, but based on the fact that the UN can longer just tell everyone to do something it is left as the suggested manner of dealing with an issue (which is how this section finishes, by suggesting that this resolution be rewritten as an issue, with the UN's opinion on the matter already stated).

Section 5 as I mentioned before makes it so that the charter is considered to be superior law to any other law, meaning that any resolutions that come into force, are given their power through the charter, meaning they must abide by the rules set forth within (therefore it is the supreme law of the UN). Making this the supreme law of the member nations is simply to show that all nations recognize that this is how the UN operates and that they cannot be a UN member without subjecting themselves to it's authority (which thanks to the other clauses here has been limited).


I'd thought of including rules on conduct between nations, as you suggested in Rights and Duties, but I think we need to draft a sort of geneva convention seperately. I'm going to open a discussion on that at a later date though.

Now that the proposal has failed to reach quorum, what changes do people feel it needs?

Now that the proposal has failed to reach quorum, what changes do people feel it needs?

I think about the first article, which I liked, but the issue I have with the second article is that you are proposing a charter that makes references to existing resolutions. I would tend to think that resolutions should make references to a charter. The charter might work best if it sticks to just saying what the goal and means of achieving that goal is.

10kMichael

The idea of referencing old resolutions is pretty standard in legal circles, also it saves us the trouble of redefining individual rights that will not be usurped by the new powers given to the nationstates. Since at present time there is no limit to the powers of resolution, it is possible to have two diametrically opposed resolutions to hold the same legal power (effectively creating a legal paradox). We would not want that happen at all, but especially not when it comes to the rights of individuals and nations, those have to be spelled out clearly (which is why I included section 5 making all parts of the charter to be the supreme law of the UN). The three resolutions I referenced cover the individual rights I felt needed to be protected from these new powers we were giving the states. I am convinced that the form the UN Charter took was legally sound, but what issues I have heard complaints about were the details of each section. With that in mind I ask you what you believe the rights of individuals and nations should be.

(I plan on getting as much imput as possible before redrafting the charter as I still believe it is necessary)

These are the items I will be asking for opinions on:
1. The role of the UN
2. The rights of individuals
3. The rights of nations

If there are any other suggestions for issues that must be addressed not individually but as part of a document defining the UN I would be happy to hear them.

The idea of referencing old resolutions is pretty standard in legal circles, also it saves us the trouble of redefining individual rights that will not be usurped by the new powers given to the nationstates.

Oh, I totally support resolutions referencing resolutions. In fact, if you'll look at the draft proposals I submitted concerning Human Rights in Joccia last week, you'll see I did the exact same thing.

[OOC: Note that those draft resolutions are roleplaying. I'm now aware that we can't really pass those resolutions, but we can all debate them in order to explore what the limits and strengths / weaknesses of the UN are]


These are the items I will be asking for opinions on:
1. The role of the UN
2. The rights of individuals
3. The rights of nations

If there are any other suggestions for issues that must be addressed not individually but as part of a document defining the UN I would be happy to hear them.

Well, that almost sounds like three different things. To a degree, the Rights of Nations will be convered in the "Rights and Duties" resolution which should be due up in the queue pretty soon.

I think the other two items might be better covered in two different documents. Here is why: We will all have diverse opinions on the rights of individuals. Just look at how we run our nations, very differently! I could see the definition of the rights of individuals being a serious sticking point, and in my humble opinion it would be better to work on one thing at a time.

So what if our UN Charter is passed in three parts over the course of two months? Call the resolutions passing the Charter, "UN Charter: Chapter 1", and the next one "Chapter 2", etc.

The point should be to really work things out and promote edits and rewrites. The Frisbeeterian resolution on Rights and Duties has been a draft proposal for a long time. It took it three tries to make it into the resolution queue.

The other reason I suggest we bite things off in smaller pieces is more personal ... I think like a dog. "FOOD, FOOD, BITE, Ooooooh maybe he'll give me some petting! FOOD, FOOD, SLOBBER, FOOD." In short, I could get lost in the details! And I seriously doubt I'm the only one ... just look at the proposals I've pinned. They are long, but still single minded.
10kMichael

It is three different things, as the point of the charter is to establish in writing what the basic requirements are for each, and how those rights/powers interact.
Rights and Duties is a bit too unclear on what the limits of the states are for my tastes, but it does bring up some very good points.
Because of the diverse opinions of people regarding what would constitute a rights I chose to reference already enacted resolutions to enshrine them as the basis for all human rights legislation, and none of them were contentious or unclear, going as far as needed without going to far in usurping state powers.
It is impossible to draft the charter in three parts.. although it may be posible in two, one as a definition of the role of the UN, and a second to act as a catch all, referencing the role of the UN, the rights of individuals, and the rights of nations, and how they interact. It is because of the fact that the main purpose of the charter is to define how these three powers interact that it cannot be drafted in parts, but the individual portions can be passed individually before the rules on how they interact are.
If a resolution cannot be passed unless it's written like it was rhethoric, I'd rather put all my citizens to the sword then have our country subject to laws looking like they came from MSL's grade schools (which as fate would have it is where we teach civics, believing that a populace aware of it's own rights is more likely to become productive citizens, in MSL ignorance is an excuse to the law, because it's the laws duty to teach and justify itself to everyone).

I am seeing many valid points being made in this thread, and many valid counter points... While some bits of the proposed charter make me a little squirmy to a point... I think It is still something we need instituted, and I can definately see some of its points being very useful in my arguments... very very very useful in fact... And while I think I have crossed text based swords with that Fris character as well, I can see that his proposal too would be of interest to the U.N. and in conclusion...

It seems the Rep of Komokom will be giving you both a yes vote on the days your pro'ps form up on the floor. So consider yourself to have a ally in the forums... or at least in the Stranger's Bar... :wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore would like to agree with the need for a UN charter. When it becomes a proposal again, I will ask my delegate to endorse it (which he will because I know him personally).

I believe that it is right to refer back to the resolutions on individual rights etc, because those are resolutions that everyone has already agreed on. This would take some of the individual opinions out of it. Perhaps you could allow for future resolutions on human rights, etc, to be referenced. This would allow the definition of "individual rights" to change over time.

You should also probably mention frisbee-dudes proposal in yours if it passes the vote. Then you could elaborate on his topics to fit your taste.

The issue with the "RBH" resolutions is one that I too have discovered and discussed. This resolution passed long ago, before the rules on game mechanics and repeals were in full swing. I wanted to turn "prostitution" into a reference document proposal, but I am sure it would be "dissapeared" by the mods.

Anyway, since your proposal survived the purges of the mods, I would keep the controversial parts pretty much intact (dealing with repeals etc).

I pledge my support to your cause, and hope that we can get this proposal to pass.

Best of Luck,
Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore