NationStates Jolt Archive

To Whom it may concern:
Article 6 of said resolution which reads
"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."
This is the only article in which I see a problem. This article has the ability to enfringe upon the soveriegnty of any nationstate within the UN. Besides this Article This eloquent proposal is indeed "up to snuff." I Believe that just a simple Ammendment could make this Proposal perfect. But until such an ammendment is made I believe that voting in the affirmative to this proposal would inflict with every Nationstate's sovereignty.

Sincerely,
KAJJITTA
of Captain Bob and the Aristocrats

We of Enn are unaware of how this article in particular infringes upon the sovereignty of member states. The Council does not see why such a duty is bad for a country - surely we should be working towards peace, not against it.

The representative of the Dark Forest of PsyPoke would like to note that no matter how those against this proposal feel and what they have against said proposal, it is safe to assume that the proposal will pass by a landslide.

As per usual, people don't start whining until its actually up on the block to be voted upon. Unfortunately for them, its too late, because of that tired sheep analogy. If you want to prove your passionate defense of your nation's rights, you might want to do it when we're actually debating on a topic as opposed to when we start voting on finalized proposals.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I appologize for my lateness in debating the issue. I had just recently joined the Nationstates as well as the UN. What I was trying to say with as much urgency as possible is that the UN's purpose is to PROTECT the soveriegnty of it's nationstates. If it is infringing on it's member nationstates ability to reject outside interference then it is not helping freedom and democracy but instead infringing upon the very rights that it is fighting for. Whether my disagreement with the proposal will do anything is not the issue. I just wish to make sure that all those whom have voted in favor of this proposal with the understanding that it will further the ideals of freedom and democracy understand that it infringes on those same ideals.

Sincerely

KAJJITTA
of Captain Bob and the Aristocrats

I appologize for my lateness in debating the issue. I had just recently joined the Nationstates as well as the UN. What I was trying to say with as much urgency as possible is that the UN's purpose is to PROTECT the soveriegnty of it's nationstates. If it is infringing on it's member nationstates ability to reject outside interference then it is not helping freedom and democracy but instead infringing upon the very rights that it is fighting for. Whether my disagreement with the proposal will do anything is not the issue. I just wish to make sure that all those whom have voted in favor of this proposal with the understanding that it will further the ideals of freedom and democracy understand that it infringes on those same ideals.

Sincerely

KAJJITTA
of Captain Bob and the Aristocrats

Now that the resolution is days away from passing you bring this up? It's too late. You should have addressed this before the resolution had agined support, or if your a delegate, before it reached quorum.

Once support reaches these levels it's too late, there's jsut not enough time to cinvince people to alter their votes.

I'm sorry but your pleas will fall on deaf ears, assuming they fall anywhere at all.

To Whom it may concern:
Article 6 of said resolution which reads
"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."

Yes, I thought it was wrong aswell, The Clan of APE voted against this, because, it sounds like something we would like to do, once we figure out how. :roll:

To Whom it may concern:
Article 6 of said resolution which reads
"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."

Yes, I thought it was wrong aswell, The Clan of APE voted against this, because, it sounds like something we would like to do, once we figure out how. :roll:
You should foment strife from outside the territory like any civilized warmonger. Inside fomenting is just tacky.

To Whom it may concern:
Article 6 of said resolution which reads
"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."

Yes, I thought it was wrong aswell, The Clan of APE voted against this, because, it sounds like something we would like to do, once we figure out how. :roll:
You should foment strife from outside the territory like any civilized warmonger. Inside fomenting is just tacky.

It says "refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState..." I think that means outside of The Clan of APE. no?

What I was trying to say with as much urgency as possible is that the UN's purpose is to PROTECT the soveriegnty of it's nationstates.
It is? That's the first I've heard of it.

I will not vote for this issue for the reasons given above and for the totalitarian tone of 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.
I have no desire to place the verdict of civilization into the hands of someone outside my own country and that is exactly what article 10 does. We are a free and democratic country and will decide on our own, using the laws inherent to our country, what is legally sanctioned and what is not. That is why we have countries, to live under our own laws, not to be governed by laws drawn up by others. Thank you for the oppertunity to share myviews in this august forum.
William, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer, The Misty Isles.

What I was trying to say with as much urgency as possible is that the UN's purpose is to PROTECT the soveriegnty of it's nationstates.
It is? That's the first I've heard of it.
I believe that is sarcasm but in the ACTUAL UN rulebook the sanctity of the soverignty of it's nationstates should not be infringed upon if they are in compliance with the UN regulations

in the ACTUAL UN rulebook the sanctity of the soverignty of it's nationstates should not be infringed upon if they are in compliance with the UN regulations

Eh? This is the actual UN. Any others that you may have heard of are nothing but figments of our collective imaginations.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Oh yes please don’t take away the national sovereignty we don’t actually have.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

Oh yes please don’t take away the national sovereignty we don’t actually have.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

:)

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 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.


These two articles worrie me. They seem to counter act each other and give UN law precedence over my countries laws.

...and give UN law precedence over my countries laws.

No actually the game mechanics do that...

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 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.


These two articles worrie me. They seem to counter act each other and give UN law precedence over my countries laws.

They don't counteract each other. UN membership is voluntary. Further, "without dictation by any other NationState" does not include the UN, since the UN is not a state, but a group of states which agrees to submit to legally-binding resolutions.

Naturally, UN law has precedence over national law. That's the point, in a way. Otherwise, the resolutions are worthless.