NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a resolution to provide rules for the use of military force in other nations. Article I is to prevent us from having to give Italy back to France (or France back to Rome, for that matter). Article II is to prevent travesties like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And lastly, Article III is the meat and potatoes where peacekeepers are actually authorized.

Any questions and/or comments are welcome. This proposal has not been submitted, but will be once everyone seems happy with it.

Whereas the United Nations recognizes the threat posed by the military forces of Rogue Nations,

Recognizing that any individual state may be insufficient to protect its own borders,

The United Nations is hereby resolved:

Article I: Delineation of national and international borders. All national and international borders which have been in place for at least 1826 days shall be recognized by the United Nations as binding.

Article II: Doctrine of invitation. The government of any nation officially recognized by the United Nations is permitted to invite foreign troops into their territories. A nation whose government is in exile, house arrest, or is in any other way prevented from communicating to the outside world by dint of the actions of military forces from another nation is assumed to give invitations to any nation willing to send aid.

Article III: Authorization of Force by UN Member States. UN Member States are hereafter permitted and encouraged the use of military force for the explicit purpose of defending the national borders of another nation as recognized in Article I, provided the host nation has issued an invitation as recognized in Article II.

Sponsored by VaultTech

The first problem I see is a pretty simple one to explain: In Article II, you mention that any government which can't communicate is presumed to have invited other nations to send aid. A good idea for a clause, but there's a problem: how do we know they can't communicate? Is it based on silence for some period of time? Is it based on failure to communicate with a specific body (say, the UN)?

I'm also curious how you picked 1,826 days as the time requirement to establish borders. That doesn't divide evenly into units of 356 (Gregorian years), 7 (Gregorian weeks), or 10 (uhm... I guess I could say metric weeks just for fun), and those are the obvious ones I'd look for.

I'm sure I'll think of something else, later. This sort of thing can get pretty touchy, since it's more or less an attempt to seal up loopholes in using "peacekeeping" as an invasion tool, and it's important to avoid loopholes in such a proposal. Of course, proposals regarding war always face the problem that war isn't quite an official game system; I personally think this is a relevant topic for international discussion, at the least.

Perhaps my maths is out, but I get 1826 days = just over 5 years, which sounds alarmingly short if you're talking protracted civil wars.

Article II is also a problem, especially when you're looking at the sort of place where peacekeeping missions are likely to be required. What happens when the elected government of Country A is overthrown and replaced by a government backed by Country B. The elected government is locked up (under house arrest, for the purposes of the argument) and discredited by both the new government and Country B, who immediately recognises the new government. Can the government-under-house-arrest be deemed to have invited anyone anywhere, since there are regimes which do not recognise it as having any authority to do so?
Likewise, can the newly-installed government request peacekeeping troops in order to prevent any enthusiastic supporters of the old regime quiet?

Why "tf" should we send our lovely Psychotropicans to die for anothers cause ?

Answer me that before I proceed

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Intollerance for all Psychotropics

To begin with, five years is precisely 1826.25 days, including the quarter of a day gained every year which culminates to the 29th of February. As to the question of how do we determine if a government is incommunicado, if the diplomatic channels of communication have successfully dissolved to the point such that we have officially lost contact with said nation, then it is assumed we can send troops to aid them. Also, as to the question of if the civil war can be supported by UN peacekeepers, the answer is no. Simply put, a regime change is a technical change of boundaries in which Nation A, which is controlled by government A, no longer has borders and instead there is now government B, which controls Nation B, whose borders are the old borders of Nation A. As in article I, the UN supports the borders of Nation A, not Nation B.
And also, your troops need not die for other nations, this proposal only allows the military support of other nations which are being invaded, it does not support it.
Sponsored by VaultTech

To begin with, five years is precisely 1826.25 days, including the quarter of a day gained every year which culminates to the 29th of February. As to the question of how do we determine if a government is incommunicado, if the diplomatic channels of communication have successfully dissolved to the point such that we have officially lost contact with said nation, then it is assumed we can send troops to aid them. Also, as to the question of if the civil war can be supported by UN peacekeepers, the answer is no. Simply put, a regime change is a technical change of boundaries in which Nation A, which is controlled by government A, no longer has borders and instead there is now government B, which controls Nation B, whose borders are the old borders of Nation A. As in article I, the UN supports the borders of Nation A, not Nation B.
And also, your troops need not die for other nations, this proposal only allows the military support of other nations which are being invaded, it does not support it.
Sponsored by VaultTech
That doesn't quite allay my fears on either count.

Let's assume that your nation and mine are engaged in a protracted territorial dispute (we wouldn't be, but let's assume that we were). In such a dispute, it is perfectly possible that my nation or yours would gain control of territory which had previously belonged to the the other one. Would we be able to hold onto it for 5 years? It would be a challenge, but not a completely impossible one (OOC: look at how long Indonesia held onto East Timor, for example). The instant the 5th year ended, the UN would have to surrender any ability to run peacekeeping missions to restore those borders, even if your capital was now under my control. Sounds like a bit of a risk.

Further, let's assume that in the process of this war, my nation sponsors a coup in yours. Your government is kicked out, put under house arrest and executed, depending on how the rebels feel at the time. The rebels march into the capital and make suitable proclamations that "a new era has begun" and so on and immediately start making peaceful noises in my direction. I instantly recognise the new regime as the legitimate government of Vault 21.
I refer you here to the final sentence in Article II:
A nation whose government is in exile, house arrest, or is in any other way prevented from communicating to the outside world by dint of the actions of military forces from another nation is assumed to give invitations to any nation willing to send aid.
Now, the members of the old regime in your country are indeed "in exile, house arrest" or generally unable to communicate to the rest of the world. Trouble is that my country and my allies don't even agree that they're the legitimate government anymore. So, by a purely legalistic interpretation of the resolution as drafted, the proposed peacekeeping mission in Vault 21 is hamstrung to begin with since there are UN members who deny that the legitimate government is incapable of asking for assistance. Any time people try to point to your old Head of State who's currently under house arrest, I merely trundle out the rebel leader who I've installed as the President of Vault 21.
With good drafting, this situation can be avoided.

I also don't see why, once the Enodian-backed regime is safely ensconced in your country, they can't call for peacekeeping forces to do one of two things:
1. subdue counter-revolutionary forces loyal to the original government.
2. prevent incursions by neighbouring nations with the avowed aim of re-establishing control by the original government (OOC: think the invasion of Russia after the Soviets took control).

Neither of these activities seem to be prevented by the proposal as it stands.

Why "tf" should we send our lovely Psychotropicans to die for anothers cause ?

Answer me that before I proceed

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Intollerance for all Psychotropics

It says "to any nation willing to send aid. "

So you don't have to help, I suppose.

Let's assume that your nation and mine are engaged in a protracted territorial dispute (we wouldn't be, but let's assume that we were). In such a dispute, it is perfectly possible that my nation or yours would gain control of territory which had previously belonged to the the other one. Would we be able to hold onto it for 5 years? It would be a challenge, but not a completely impossible one (OOC: look at how long Indonesia held onto East Timor, for example). The instant the 5th year ended, the UN would have to surrender any ability to run peacekeeping missions to restore those borders, even if your capital was now under my control. Sounds like a bit of a risk.
The assumption here is that the UN peace keepers can be called in at any time within five years, because the borders would technically be in dispute until such a time as the proper borders are returned, and the proper borders would be those that the fighting began with to defend, otherwise this would be meaningless.

Further, let's assume that in the process of this war, my nation sponsors a coup in yours. Your government is kicked out, put under house arrest and executed, depending on how the rebels feel at the time. The rebels march into the capital and make suitable proclamations that "a new era has begun" and so on and immediately start making peaceful noises in my direction. I instantly recognize the new regime as the legitimate government of Vault 21.
The legitimate government of Vault 21 is not the government that you endorse, but the original government, if you recall I already spoke of this situation here: Simply put, a regime change is a technical change of boundaries in which Nation A, which is controlled by government A, no longer has borders and instead there is now government B, which controls Nation B, whose borders are the old borders of Nation A. As in article I, the UN supports the borders of Nation A, not Nation B.
I also don't see why, once the Enodian-backed regime is safely ensconced in your country, they can't call for peacekeeping forces to do one of two things:
1. subdue counter-revolutionary forces loyal to the original government.
2. prevent incursions by neighboring nations with the avowed aim of re-establishing control by the original government (OOC: think the invasion of Russia after the Soviets took control).
As pointed out before, they are not the legitimate government, and therefore have no part in the UN, nor any right to call for peacekeepers.
Sponsored by VaultTech

I see your point regarding governmental legitimacy, but where does this resolution (or any other) say what constitutes a legitimate government? The one I'd be endorsing in this hypothetical would be in occupation of your Presidential Palace (or whatever it is that you have in your nation) and doing its darnedest to pass legislation. Both of which would be functions which your "legitimate government" would be unable to do and should probably be done by the legitimate government of a sovereign nation.

Well I guess this is going to need an article IV for this... We will have a new copy of the draft within a few weeks.
Sponsored by VaultTech

In fact, the foregoing discussion made me realise that we could probably do with a working definition of "Legitimate Government". I'll football some ideas around during the week, as well as trying to get some of my pesky region-mates to endorse me, and hopefully this issue might get put to bed sometime soon.