Points against current resolution
1. Article 11 mentions subjection of national sovereignty to international law, yet Article 3 gives states right to refuse intervention in all their domestic affairs.
2. Article 8 declares equality of all states in UN system, yet our current UN system is not equally representational: delagates have siginficantly higher representation. Therefore, while I support heartily efforts to draw up a framework for formal international law, this proposal is incompatible both with its own claims and with our existing UN system
Frisbeeteria
21-02-2004, 03:24
Sorry, you can't pick and choose lines to agree with. It's been submitted as a SINGLE Resolution, so each of the 11 Articles modifes all of the others.
Article 3 includes the phrase, " ... subject to the immunities recognized by international law." That clearly permits the UN to act in Article 11.
Article 8 does not call for equality in representation, only in International Law. There we ARE all equal. In theory, everyone has an equal opportunity to act as delegate, too. In actuality, regional politics make it a bit more problematic.
All of these have been discussed at length in this Discussion Topic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123088). I recommend you read it over and continue any comments in that thread.
Perhaps the wording of article 11 should be softened?
Frisbeeteria
21-02-2004, 03:38
Perhaps the wording of article 11 should be softened?
Why? It's the straight truth.
Besides, you can't alter resolutions on the floor. All or nothing.
Mikitivity
21-02-2004, 04:44
Perhaps the wording of article 11 should be softened?
Besides, you can't alter resolutions on the floor. All or nothing.
While this is true, we can still rehash the key points for new members like Talista, whom if I'm guessing right, would still be open to the resolution if we could address their questions.
With that in mind, maybe a series of short examples would help illustrate how what is a complicated resolution would work:
Example: Article 3
Situation: Frisbeeteria enacts a new law banning political contributions from international organizations. The Confederation of Mikitivity, which had been contributing significant amounts of money to the Frisbeeterian Socialist Party, responds to the new Frisbeeterian law claiming that it is discriminatory towards opposition parties, so it sends a delegation of telepaths to Frisbeeterian to assist with fund raising efforts of the Frisbeeterian Socialist Party.
Assume no current treaty between Frisbeeteria and Mikitivity allows for the sending of telepathic aid. Assume both nations are members of the NationStates UN.
Under Article 3, Frisbeeteria could claim that Mikitivity has violated its UN obligations when it sent its delegation of telepaths.
Does this sound fair? If not, please feel free to correct me.
I know I didn't address Article 11. I'm saving that one for the Ambassador from Frisbeeteria.
If you read through The Discussion Topic For This Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123088), your are likely to find that most of your issues have been addressed and answered.
Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador