NationStates Jolt Archive

The current United Nations resolution is representative of the growing tendency for legislation to interfere directly upon the internal affairs of a nation - in its provision of education, social security, health or other services. The UN is an international body designed to ensure peace, and basic human rights, and does not possess the statutory law making power being implied in such legislation. Legislation passed via the UN is not binding unless ratified, and UN authority extends into only a limitted number of areas including: maintenance of peace & declarations of war; basic human rights inc. a right to free speech, assembly, freedom from persecution - negative rather than positive rights, in essence; and without institutions such as the IMF, WTO, WB, in international trade, finance and lending.

This post states that the UN is assuming powers it has no right to, and that as such, laws 'passed' in it are not binding. do you agree?

We feel this should be the case.

If this resolution is passed, however, you will get a telegram from the "Compliance Ministry" telling you that the changes have ben forcibly imposed upon your nation whether you agree or not.

Your national statistics will reflect the change.

This post states that the UN is assuming powers it has no right to, and that as such, laws 'passed' in it are not binding. do you agree?

It has long been my nation's opinion that:

1. If a problem doesn't cross international borders, it doesn't belong in a UN resolution.

2. When the UN ignores rule 1, it drives away member nations thus reducing the significance of this body and its resolutions.

[OOC: 3. the problem is part game mechanics / part lack of experience of players. For people who are real world gamers, take the game Diplomacy, you quickly realize that what you say and do, has a significant bearing in how you do in the game. Nation States has no penalties, so players who aren't really familiar with things like the real world UN treat the UN as a "lets ban gay marriage" or "lets legalize prostitution" forum -- basically they throw away the international roleplaying that happens in the real world and are working on building a monoculture. Hello Starbucks, Microsoft, and McDonalds! Let's not think for ourselves when somebody else will do it for us.] :roll:

10kMichael

Yeah, what Mikitivity said. To get specific:

This post states that the UN is assuming powers it has no right to, and that as such, laws 'passed' in it are not binding. do you agree?

Yes and no. If you're just talking about your nation's stats, every UN law is binding - as Neighborly Affection pointed out, your stats change automatically.

But if you're interested in roleplaying your nation - on the International Incidents forum, in here, or whatever - you can choose to *roleplay* ignoring UN resolutions. In that case, other nations can roleplay their response as they see fit - they might impose economic sanctions, apply diplomatic pressure or even declare war. Or they might just shrug and ignore you, depending.

If this is how you feel, leave the UN, simple as that.

If this is how you feel, leave the UN, simple as that.

I wouldn't go so far as to invalidate somebody's feeling. People have a right to want to be UN members for more than just roleplaying justifications.

Very important: UN endorsements are used to prevent region crashing! Granted many players will have multiple nations: one to roleplay with, and a puppet with a crunched economy and wonky game stats to play the endorsement game.

There are also a few of us that are MUNers and actually like the idea of drafting realistic UN resolutions ... it is crazy, but I've copied and pasted a few real UN clauses into one resolution that was passed and watched people say, "The real UN would never do this." --- when the reality is: it already has.

To be honest, I find it interesting to see who has done their homework and who hasn't. To vote against something is far enough. To vote for it, fair again. But to say, "This would never happen in the real world", when a quick google or un.org search will show that statement wrong, it kinda gives a small glimpse at people's poker faces. ;)

My point, people can complain about people voting for or against. That is the point of the forums.

In the previous debate, it was pointed out that UN membership hasn't really dropped. So either people aren't leaving, or the same number or more new nations are constantly taking the places of nations that leave the UN.

I think it would be interesting to run a statistic of percentage of UN nations relative to non-UN nations and see if that ratio changes with time. It would also be interesting to see if the timing of resolutions has any impact. Might not ... but I think everybody will agree that the UN is an interesting experiment.

Finally, I'm of the school of thought: if you don't like something, try and change it before throwing in the towel.

10kMichael

Yes... this resolution... and the one before banning "subliminal advertising", are examples of not only the UN abusing it's powers... but also of the fact that morons now seem to outnumber the reasonable. Last one passed with a majority over 1000 ... and this one is destined for the same. If this resolution is passed, the most Holy Church of Psychotropics will close every public school. All education will be privatised. We will assist via vouchers to the families of psychotropics.... but we will not be told what to teach in our own nation!

People of the UN, please read every resolution with this thought in mind "does this intrude on a nations rights?" .... if the answer swirling around in your head is "Yes" ... then please vote against.

Sheesh!

Pope Liam the Rich, Pontiff of all Psychotropics and Founder of Shambhala

When the Allow Gay Marriages resolution went before the UN, that's when I removed my country from the UN. At that point I realized nobody took the UN seriously.

in real life the UN sucks


www.getusout.org

If you leave, then the number of people who can and should change the UN decreases. No, leaving will only make things worse.

Did anyone read the 'Ban All Armies" proposal? Had I and others who opposed the "Right to Choose" resolution left, that might have been up for vote and then what... That resolution actually had the gall to force itself on Non-UN Members.

No, those that want the UN to change must rally together and slowly gather our strength.

Soon those in power will make their mistake and that's when we can reshape the UN to what it's suppose to be.

One thing we can do is Telegram those that voted to continue the corruption and make sure they are making informed choices. I'll admit that when I first started as a UN Member, I blindly voted without carefully reading the resolution and visiting the forums. We must get our voices heard by those who vote in ignorance.

Leave and the UN will grow into the monster we'll all fear.

Wait...
Where does this Resolution define what curriculum you can use? All this seems to do is provide money to nations who need the funding to enhance their education. It certainly advocates extra-curricular activities, but it certainly doesn't mandate them.
And, of course, if you're concerned, you can always refuse the money. That is one of your rights as a UN State. For instance, the Holy Empire of Gethamane doesn't feel that it needs any assistance to manage our national education, so will not be accepting any of this money.

Wait...
Where does this Resolution define what curriculum you can use? All this seems to do is provide money to nations who need the funding to enhance their education. It certainly advocates extra-curricular activities, but it certainly doesn't mandate them.
And, of course, if you're concerned, you can always refuse the money. That is one of your rights as a UN State. For instance, the Holy Empire of Gethamane doesn't feel that it needs any assistance to manage our national education, so will not be accepting any of this money.

How about Mandating that we pay for school lunches ?

WTF are parents for .. if not to feed their own offspring ?

Perhaps you could outline for me how this mandates anything besides the formation of the UNEC and that it will dispense money for potential uses?

Yep, Gethamane read it

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS shall form the United Nations Educational Committee, or UNEC, which shall resolve all of these problems in our nation's educational systems by providing funding to these systems, so they may repair unsafe schools, purchase security systems to protect our students from harm, provide extra-curricular activities to help our children's mental and physical state of being, provide them with healthier school lunches, provide a better learning environment for our children by *>*>training teachers and purchasing more up-to-date materials for the students<*<*, and overall ensuring our world's future to be a prosperous one.


Who's to say what kind of training the Teachers receive? And what about the material. OOC - TRUE STORY: A friend of mine is a teacher who teaches ESL (English as a Second Language.) He recently got into a debate with his students... the topic - American History: Slavery The Students believed that if you omit the fact that America kept slaves from the history books, then it will end racism.

Sounds good yea? If that happened, in 3 - 4 generations, affirmative action groups would be up against Federal Courts for discrinimation. After all, USA NEVER HAD SLAVES, so the United Negro College Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, even the Rainbow Collition and all those job quotas that employers must watch for goes POOF. Because the Minorities (especilly people of African Decent) loose the oppression exscuse and the Civil War becomes a joke. Expand that to other areas, remove the Holocaust from history books, and another Hitler might rise up. Remove the horrors of the KKK and you'll find them doing even worse things. Some Visitors from Japan never realized they attacked Pearl Harbor. They come here and they are shocked when they visit the Arizona Memorial, some don't believe it happened because THEY DON'T TEACH it in Japan (or didn't.)

In some countries, learning is a religious experience. Philosophies (liberal or conservative) Values, and even morals are taught by the teachers. Communistic values can be instilled in sporting events. and minds, feelings, and opinions formed. This is why I oppose this resolution. seeing what has been approved in the past and all thoses proposals in the que, makes me worried about these "standards" that will be used.

Unfortunatly, by refusing the money (if your Nation does not meet what ever standards used) you will be in Violaton of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE because you are refusing your citizen's right to choose for a better educational system. Think about it.

*** edited after reading about dispersing the money comment ***

"Hmmm, you pissed me off little nation... Less money for you."

or to quote a favorite filk song.

Three things never anger,
the one who runs your DEC,
The Boss's secretary,
and the ONE WHO SIGNS YOUR CHECK

why do you think people fear the accountants. all they do is distribute the money.

the only soverignty that is meaningful is your own personal
soverignty over your own personal individual life.

soverignty is not a freedom but a responsibility and one that is
often premeditatedly igonred.
there is even a pretense that doing
so somehow 'conserves' something;
though i have yet to see, if anything, what.

to the contrary the perpetuating of familiar assumptions serves only
to hasten the demise of what real compensations in life may be its
good fortune.

i may be missing the nature of the question, if so please forgive.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't plan on joining the UN anytime soon. Although the endorsements and debates seem like a lot of fun, slowly transforming into an inoffensive centrist democracy or whatever really doesn't.

Unfortunatly, by refusing the money (if your Nation does not meet what ever standards used) you will be in Violaton of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE because you are refusing your citizen's right to choose for a better educational system. Think about it.

If you would like to interpret Right to Choose that way, then feel free. The question, however, is that if your schools are already in such a pickle that you will need this money and your citizens choose to have a better education system... Aren't you [i]still[i/i] required to provide it (by your legal interpretation)?
Besides... I don't have to provide a different system for my citizens even if they do want one.

I have voted "against" this proposal...
And, Ichi Ni, you certainly make a valid point regarding standards. If this proposal doesn't mention them, and it passes (as it looks like it will), then there is (apparently) nothing standing in the way of a liberal nation stepping in and submitting educational standards that the UNEC will enforce upon Member-States. Obviously, such standards cannot help but be biased. Perhaps a draft should be prepared in advance to set up "standards" which will work for everyone. Essentially, a document outlining a broad spectrum of educational choices (for the government only to make, whether by democratic vote or executive decision) making it impossible to inflict tight standards on everyone?

Despite the most vigourous campaigning we could come up with, this bill looks set to pass. We'll accordingly dispatch our elite proposal-decapitation squad, the Eleventh Forum Rats, to find an appropriate disabling clause within it that allows us to emulate our great national animal - the weasel - in the event that it has unpleasant consequences for us.

The great thing about poorly-thought-out resolutions is that they tend to carry the seeds of their own redundancy.

Sorry to get all cynical on ya, but when overrun by the naive, cynicism becomes one's only recourse.

If you think the UN interferes with your national politics, then, leave the UN. Simple as that.