NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys, Someone wrote something that got me thinking... (yeah, I know, frightening isn't it.)

Because all UN Members are required to obey past resolutions, this will make things easier, scarier but easier nonetheless.

First starting with the first resolution passed. (feel free to look them up.)

RESOLUTION:
Fight the Axis of Evil: "... building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security."

translation- funding for research into new weapons are there. Infact this resolution supports the development of these platforms.

Validity - No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.

WARNING: All Nationstates declaring themselves without defenses are in violation of this resolution.


RESOLUTION:
Scientific Freedom: Whole resolution.

Translation: The platform can also be used to further this resolution with funding and multi purpose. (nothing in this resolution about this platform ONLY being used for weapons/defense.)

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION
International Space Initiative: "... Herewith are basic Ideology for the ISI: 1) a universal collective of science, manufacturing and DEFENSE."

Translation: This resolution provides the council for monitoring the platforms, supports the idea of this unified defense platform and provides a safer (at least protected) area to explore. As colonies pop up, protection can be provided.

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION:
Rights and duties of UN States: Read Article 5, 8

Translation: Should terrorist/rouge nations attempt and succeed in capturing platforms, these articles deal with that. They also deal with War Between Nations, and as UN Property, Nations Involved cannot touch these.

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION:
UN Space Consortium:

Translations: WE PUT A LUNAR BASE UP and we are concerned about platforms???

Validitiy: looks up... yep, the base is still there. No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


So funding is mostly there, the resources are nearly in place. and we all have to obey UN Resolutions, any vote against this violates 2 resolutions right off the bat! And since there is no repeal process nor ways to change resolutions... they are still valid.
No matter how you translate it, SDI platforms won't cost much more since this falls into the funds for several UN projects already in place. It will further science and promote peace (albet through superior firepower... but peace nonetheless.)

Wow. Interesting.

So basically from this line of thought, we MUST vote YES on the resolution. Hmmm, your deduction is very good. Very very very good.

Though, (Naturally, :wink: ) I have one problem.

Do passed U.N. resolutions apply to how we vote

Enodia, you seem our expert on the U.N. and the name-sake forum, could you shed some illumination on this interesting interpretation?

- The Rep of Komokom.

I don't see why not... unfortunatly. After all, how else would compliance be measured if not by how you vote on your national issues as well as UN Resolutions.

(I think it was covered in one of Byteks many ranting threads that got locked.)

On the bright side, we can see if there is any harsh consiquences for not following UN Resolutions.

However, should there not be... then that makes all resolutions meaningless and the UN nothing.

Suddenly all those feel good resolutions passed as well as those in the que are starting to look very dangerous to me.

A big thumbs-up to Ichi Ni!

This is one of the most subtly humorous posts I've seen on these boards. The wording is very well chosen, and the non sequiturs are craftily interwoven into the text, to the point that they might even be overlooked at first glance. Definitely brought a smile to my face, and hopefully to quite a few others' as well.

(Just to be on the safe side ... this IS meant as a joke, isn't it? :wink: )

nope, no joke. 100% scared serious.

and the sad thing is... the true joke if there is one... is that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Someone wrote a question about the Axis of Evil resolution and that got me to seriously reading the past resolutions.

... and to think of all those proposals waiting to be voted on...
... and all the sheep that just log into the UN to vote...
[shudder]

DP

The honorouble nation Ichi Ni appears to confuse two things. The current resolution at vote, objectionable though it may be, does not violate any previous UN resolutions.

However, voting against is does not mean previous resolutions are violate.

Or, as one of our nation's leading philosopers has said: a cow is an animal, but not all animals are cows.

The previous resolutions do not state specifically that this specific SDI has to be built. So voting against does not violate any UN resolutions.

The UN ambassador of the PRoGG is shocked and appalled on behalf of his president and his nation by this blatant form of blackmailing nations to vote for this foolish resolution.

I think I realise what Ichi Ni is saying ... :shock:

Oh Jeebus.

Jeebus Wept.

Oh Sweet Jeebus.

Jeebus Jeebus Jeebus.

Why am I in panic? Because if Ichi Ni is correct as I think they may possibly be, it means that to vote against a proposal that contains an action that is protected by past passed U.N. law is to violate said past passed U.N. law and would mean thus ... To avoid that it would mean ...

Oh ...

Sweet, sweet, sweet, Jeebus.

Errr, in the event this N.S. is moved to the N.S. 2 server by Jolt, and we don't need to pay ... Could we please reset the U.N. if what Ichi Ni is saying is right, please ?

Jeebus On A Pedal Bike.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS. Last seen fleeing the U.N. to a non-disclosed location, most likely a mile below the worlds surface with several layers of lead and concrete protecting it, to fend off the possible shite-storm.

And might I add, Groot Gouda, drop the politic, this has some very scary and long reaching implications. Well, it darn'd well might.

Just another example of why we need to work to find a way to modify the game mechanics; open them up, make them more democratic.

Coll, I am thinking I could begin to agree with that, but its 1 AM here now and I need to get some troubled sleep.

And a good night to all ... :?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Or, as one of our nation's leading philosopers has said: a cow is an animal, but not all animals are cows.
Very apt. Or, as one of our nation's leading DJs has said: there's a difference between grabbing the bull by the horns and just grabbing the bull...

In any case, Groot G. is right: the game mechanics may well need updating, but that's an issue entirely unconnected with this proposal. The logic at the heart of this thread is flawed, and claims like these can result in tainted votes.

Sincere apologies to Ichi. I truly did think the opening post was intended to be facetious.

Bah. No worries. Just because past UN resolutions can be interpreted as supporting what THIS resolution says, it does not follow that we must vote for this resolution. It is far more specific than any of the components of the past resolutions that have been mentioned. Just because we are in compliance with past resolutions promoting weapons research and the utilisation of space does NOT mean we MUST agree to new resolutions which promote those goals further, or promote them in specific ways, such as building expensive weapons platforms with dangerous experimental technology. We are perfectly free to vote against this resolution -- after all, no previous resolution explicitly states or implicitly implies that we must develop anti-asteroid weapons platforms.

Besides, even if we agree with the general intent of this resolution -- which we do -- it does not follow that we must agree with all the clauses. For example, this resolution introduces several components we do not at all like, such as the need for consensus before the platform can be used, and more funding for new weapons. We might support its intent -- to protect our world from asteroids -- and this general intent is all that past resolutions can be said to protect or promote. But if we do not support some of its specific clauses, we do not have to vote for the resolution, since those clauses themselves are NOT encouraged by past resolutions, and since there is no clause-by-clause voting mechanism in NS -- we must either accept the resolution as a whole, or not accept it.

And we cannot accept it as a whole.

In conclusion, our government votes against this resolution, but still considers itself in full compliance with UN international law.

Sincerely,

Office of the Prime Minister

Nice to know that Ichi Ni ... as we have already voted for (I know it's strange... but we did) this resolution. We view that it comes down to the core principle of the Social Contract... that of defense of the populous. This is one area where I do feel it is governments place to use taxes. So it is nice to know that we are in compliance of UN law by casting our vote the way we have.

Nice thread btw

Ichi Ni writes

"Because all UN Members are required to obey past resolutions,"


Are you sure about this because i was under the impression that a UN member only had to obey resolutions made after they became a member

Ichi Ni writes

"Because all UN Members are required to obey past resolutions,"


Are you sure about this because i was under the impression that a UN member only had to obey resolutions made after they became a member

Slight correction: UN members only have to obey UN resolutions passed while they are UN members. Your countries "stats" will be changed shortly after passage and at the same time as all other UN members. If you aren't a UN member at the time, you aren't subject to that UN resolution ... mechanically speaking.

10kMichael

I remember reading a Sci-Fi story, like 20 years ago.... I think it was called The Morning of the Day They Did It or something like that....

In that story, they built a space defense platform....

The guys up there in the platform took a look down at the ball that was Earth, and decided they didnt feel any attachment to it anymore... and decided -- for the fun of it -- that they would do a little shootin' and turned the guns against the Earth itself....

That is why I am voting NO for this Space Defense bill. Any weapon powerful enough to destroy an asteroid is a doomsday weapon when pointed toward the Eqrth by a madman.

I remember reading a Sci-Fi story, like 20 years ago.... I think it was called The Morning of the Day They Did It or something like that....

In that story, they built a space defense platform....

The guys up there in the platform took a look down at the ball that was Earth, and decided they didnt feel any attachment to it anymore... and decided -- for the fun of it -- that they would do a little shootin' and turned the guns against the Earth itself....

That is why I am voting NO for this Space Defense bill.

So basically you are saying that the policies of your country are dicated by Hollywood. Interesting.

So let me ask you this:
It is also a policy of your nation to wear pointy tin foil hats like in the film "Signs"? In that film, the heroes avoiding mind controling aliens by wearing tin foil hats. Everybody knows, if it can happen in Hollywood, chances are it will happen in the real world too!

10kMichael

Really, I don't have to obey laws/resolutions voted in before me? Do you realize that will bog things down even more? Every month people need to re-vote things like Education reform (after all, a whole lot of nations just joined the UN.) Do you allow citizens of your nation to ignore laws passed before they were born?

Where did you hear that? that is interesting.

Brfitopia: for every Sci-fi story that supports your reason, there are twenty that supports this resolution. Asteroid, Evolution, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Mars Attacks, Invaders From Mars, War of the Worlds, Meteor, Fire from the Sky... need I go on? Oh, and in most of these movies, the problem is caused because the Earth was not prepared.

Prize - I know that you are ranked and graded on how you vote, however, if what you do contradicts past resolutions... well, that's for the Mods to decide. However, if you are Role-playing, Can you justify ignoring past laws on the basis that you didn't vote for them and thus does not appy to you?

And while some may argue that the past resolutions do not matter on voting on this resolution. REMEBER. it's the LETTER of the law... not the SPIRIT. so all those people in the resolution thread that proclaimed that they do NOT have a military nor any defense, by voting no, you are depriving them of the defense they are suppose to have via "fight the axis of evil." and by voting no even if you have defenses, you won't help protect a fellow UN Member via "rights and responsibilities of the UN."

This is why I vote no against vague resolutions.

Would be nice if the mods clarified these points.

Well, if this is supposed to be a simulation of the real U.N., or at least a spiritual facsimile, then it's a fine model.

This dilemma faces the real U.N. all the time. Every day that body meets it has to contend with the fact that its many of its members are in violation. Isreal has been in violation of resolution 242 for something like thirty years. The U.S. violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sixty times a minute. There are countless U.N. bylaws that are routinely ignored.

Contradictions between laws are a problem as old as Hammurabi's Code. It's not a logical system, like C or Perl, where if there's too much contradiction the process fails. It's a human system that coasts right along until there's a conflict, people get outraged, a major court battle is fought, and something is decided. Then things just go on their merry way.

If some omniscient moderator were to throw out every nation that passed a local law violating a U.N. resolution we'd never reach a quorum. The same would be true of the real U.N.

Norway would probably be the only nation left standing.

To really resolve this dilema NationStates needs a world court. Then we could all ignore that, too.

Ichi Ni writes
"Because all UN Members are required to obey past resolutions,"

Are you sure about this because i was under the impression that a UN member only had to obey resolutions made after they became a member

Slight correction: UN members only have to obey UN resolutions passed while they are UN members. Your countries "stats" will be changed shortly after passage and at the same time as all other UN members. If you aren't a UN member at the time, you aren't subject to that UN resolution ... mechanically speaking.

It appears not (this should be in the FAQ, I think).

In one of the sticky forum posts it states clearly that:
"Remember, all UN members are REQUIRED to follow all of the past resolutions."

They might not show up in your stats, but you cannot ignore them, even if they are from before you joining.

Well, perhaps not "kicked out of the UN" but if the Mods (or UN Secretary General, which should have been elected due to past resolution.) could suspended UN Membership to offending Nation(s) preventing them to vote for... say... three resolutions? (if that is possible.)

Oh, And Quorum will always be reached... after all, there are uncountable "mindless sheep" that are suddenly finding some interest in what goes on here. if not, as the numbers go down, the quorum requirements also go down.

[OOC] *sigh* too bad there can be no mechanical changes... Bugs will always remain.

"Norway would probably be the only nation left standing"

Dunno, does the UN have anything to do with whale-hunting?

Well, points done... Resolution failed... now let's see if there are any visible consiquences.

[fingers crossed... awaiting boom]

Well, points done... Resolution failed... now let's see if there are any visible consiquences.

[fingers crossed... awaiting boom]

Looks up from pop-corn, looks un-happy.

I've been jipped, the world has not ended yet, of all the cheap ...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.