NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: Is back and getting a facelift....

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=charter


I've realised there is no resolution on the actual charter of the UN, so I'm drawing one up and would welcome some input on this from other nations;


Charter of the UN
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Hirota
Description:

'The United Nations:

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;

RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom;

SEEKING to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, as far as possible;

STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security through diplomatic means;

SEEKING to ensure that disputes of situations which may lead to a breach of the peace seek resolution by peaceful means;

INTENDING to employ the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end - settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace shall be resolved by peaceful means before military means;

EAGER to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

1. RESOLVED that the United Nations shall promote rights for all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all including:
a. Higher standards of living, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation;
c. Universal respect for, and observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
d. To ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
e. To promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies with a view to the achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes;

2. Determined to remain seized on the matter.


UPDATED: Lots of changes thanks to the nations of Gruenberg for his input.

UPDATED:included "wealth" and "gender" in "c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality wealth, language, or religion. "

UPDATED: Edited section 8 - was previously "Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter and existing and future resolutions, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking enforcement action;"

UPDATED: Removed section 7 & 8 and added a new section 7. Changes some of the preambulatory clauses. Removed the implicit (and unintentional) discrimination towards non-humans. Added some spaces between clauses. Corrected some spelling.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota) | Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1) | Author of Rights of indigenous peoples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8090030&postcount=90) | I http://www.country-from-the-heart.com/Img659.gif individual sovereignty (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468850) | Only nation to turn Cluichstan fluffy and cuddly

Good stuff.

Thanks :)

Any ideas on improvement at all?

Well, the main obvious thing I can spot is:

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to gender, race, sex, language, or religion.

There are probably a couple of other things you could put in there - wealth would be one, since respecting the human rights of the wealthy more than the poor is clearly something the UN should work against.

Well, the main obvious thing I can spot is:

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to gender, race, sex, language, or religion.

I did put sex in there, BUT Gender is a better description.

There are probably a couple of other things you could put in there - wealth would be one, since respecting the human rights of the wealthy more than the poor is clearly something the UN should work against.

Good one :)

It'll annoy a lot of people, but I think sexuality should be included as something that shouldn't discriminated against too. The other problem is the stuff regarding intervention to prevent military conflict etc - it can't be actually enforced, because the game doesn't recognise war.

Otherwise, very good. What category will it be?

Dammit. It was too early in the morning and I read 'sex' as 'sexuality'. I've clearly been hanging around with too many queer theorists if I consider the latter more important than the former.

Wow, pass this and you can close the UN resolution process down. New resolutions won't be needed as just about every feel-good, new world order, socialist idea is represented here. What are all the little people with grandiose ideas going to do then? It'll make my job alot easier beacause I won't have to pore through all those brainless proposals to find the very few that are worthy of support by a sovereign nation.

The whole idea of this resolution is anti-NationStates. It goes way past interference in member state's affairs. Here you have a "machine" of oppression. According to the FAQS, Nations are allowed to treat their citizens however they wish. How does this proposal reconcile with that? A large part of our NS community enjoys Rp and gaming. What about them?

How will this be enforced? How much will it cost?

Determined that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members

How does the whole resolution reconcile itself to this statement? The proposal is advocating interference in national sovereignty, as evidenced by the next two paragraphs.

Determined that all members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter and existing and future resolutions; and

Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter and existing and future resolutions, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action

I find the whole resolution just scary. :shock:

Pres. Rix Wax
Democratic Order of Rixtex
Texas Regional Sec. of UN Matters

How will this be enforced? How much will it cost?


Cost : $0.00
It is a declaration.
It is enforced by future resolutions.
In the corporate world it would translate to a mission statement. It would still cost: $0.00. It would be enforced by actual projects and jobs.

10kMichael

I like it. I see nothing wrong with a charter to better this 'society'

How will this be enforced? How much will it cost?


Cost : $0.00
It is a declaration.
It is enforced by future resolutions.
In the corporate world it would translate to a mission statement. It would still cost: $0.00. It would be enforced by actual projects and jobs.

10kMichael

Sounds like a lot more than a mission statement to me. Enforced by actual projects and jobs? What are you talking about here? MONEY! Actual projects and jobs cost money.

Oh, I know, it's not real money. It's taxes. It's other people's money.

It appears to me that the two paragraphs I cite in my original reply are going to cost somebody something. You know, the parts about:

Determined that all members...shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them...; and

Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes...

Who will pay the most are the nations who do not choose to run their nations as the author believes they should.

Pres. Rix Wax
Democratic Order of Rixtex
Texas Regional Sec. of UN Matters

It appears to me that the two paragraphs I cite in my original reply are going to cost somebody something. You know, the parts about:

Determined that all members...shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them...; and

Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes...

Who will pay the most are the nations who do not choose to run their nations as the author believes they should.


I'm not sure, but it sounds like you are suggesting that UN membership should be like a free ride then? That you can join the UN, but if you don't like one of its decisions you can opt out.

Surely I don't have to work out examples of where that is going to leave the UN ...

Of course UN obligations will cost something. If they didn't, the organization wouldn't work. Anything short of that would be compariable to playing a board game with that kid down the block that kicks the board any time he starts to fall behind. What is the point in wasting time with the kid that only plays when EVERYTHING is in his favour? Answer: none.

10kMichael

At this time, and provided sexuality is mentioned, I like it.

{ PASS }

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Sexuality is not needed...... sex is mentioned. If there is an agreement to allow full rights to all males and females... the so-called trans-gendered will obviously be protected. xx or xy ... that's all the universe gave you. There is no born xx, added a y, etc.

We feel that it is a well thought out declaration... and unless it is altered in such a way as to remove any aspect of national sovregnity.... we will support it.

First of all, thanks all member states who have so far given the green light to the proposal. IN line with the requests so far I have introduced "sexuality" into the draft (I should have in the first place really - it is implied but not clearly there)

Rixtex - the intention of this proposed resolution is to provide a clear mandate on the UN. There is no cost - the UN already exists and is full of paid employees; it's just stating in black and white what the UN represents, what it should be aiming to accomplish.

According to the FAQS, Nations are allowed to treat their citizens however they wish. How does this proposal reconcile with that?

Unless they are part of the UN, then they are influenced by the UN and influence the UN in return...it does cut down on your freedom of choice to decide what should or should not happen to your nation, but in return you have the ability to influence other nations...that's not how I'd like it to work, but it's all game mechanics.

How does the whole resolution reconcile itself to this statement? The proposal is advocating interference in national sovereignty...

No, it isn't. It's simply putting in black and white the fact that the UN has always interfered in the national sovereignty of member states. The "Determined that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members" phrase was meant to recognise that there are nations out there managed in different ways, each equally valid.

It appears to me that the two paragraphs I cite in my original reply are going to cost somebody something. You know, the parts about:
Determined that all members...shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them...; and
Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes...
Who will pay the most are the nations who do not choose to run their nations as the author believes they should.

I'll tackle these two paragraphs one at a time.

The first one simply underlines the way the NS UN works - you have to fulfil the obligations (such as resolutions). It's a game mechanics thing and I was paying homage to that.

The second one is not an unreasonable request - if you join the UN you have obligations to the organisation. If the UN decides to legalise cannabis, your nation is expected to assist (which it does already if such a resolution was to pass). It's been in existence since the UN was created, and I'm disappointed you had not realised that.

Finally, how member states run their nations is of no concern to ME - It is the UN as a whole to decide such measures, not some moderately small nation such as the DSH. I'm not trying to stop you eating your national animal or anything like that, that's the UN's job. This draft resolution is intended to try and provide a clear mandate on what the UN should be aiming to acheive.

The other problem is the stuff regarding intervention to prevent military conflict etc - it can't be actually enforced, because the game doesn't recognise war.

True, but some people role play it, so I suppose the UN might have some member states who would role play peacekeeping etc...Having said that, when I submit it, I'll probably need to trim it down and that'll be one of the first things to go.

Otherwise, very good. What category will it be?

I'm thinking about it right now...

This proposal has now been submitted for consideration and I shall now be trawling the campaign trail for delegate votes.

Yes, I will vote for this....how do I vote?
BC

This is socialist nonsense and King Alphaks will have none of it! :twisted:

It is Alphaks!
That means I won't support it! Sorry, I am a Monarch after all! :twisted:

Approved it

Yes, I will vote for this....how do I vote?
BC

BC - I have PM'd you on how you go about endorsing this resolution.

I'd like to thank the nations who have thus far endorsed my proposal....so far it seems to be roughly on schedule for reaching quorum, but still a long way to go!

this proposal has received a lot of support, however it looks unlikely to reach quorum, falling 25 or so short.

I'd like to thank all member states who have endorsed it thus far, and I will be resubmitting it in the immediate future.

I am very much so incorporating it into my World Body Act, if Psychotropics would just copy the telegram he recieved into the thread. :)

I need a jumpstart like this, and thank you.

Hirota, please telegram me, I have to discuss this with you.

this proposal will be resubmitted within 24 hours.

Hirota, after almost 2 years of letting this topic rot, has opted to resurrect this draft – as it came relatively close to passing before, we feel that it is worthy of a second effort. Because of it’s age, we are putting it to the wider assembly for consideration before submission.

OOC: Ha! Looks like national sovereignty has been a hot potato for longer than one might think. Anyway, I supported the proposal back then and probably will now.

It’s been a hot potato for as long as I can see, way back in September 2003. I would not be surprised if the one person who voted against the first resolution voted against it because it violated national sovereignty.

At least if this draft goes through the draft process again it will hopefully have a broad demographic of support – I can’t see where it can be improved any further, but never hurts to seek a fresh perspective :)

__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota) | Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1) | Author of Rights of indigenous peoples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8090030&postcount=90) | I http://www.country-from-the-heart.com/Img659.gif individual sovereignty (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468850) | Only nation to turn Cluichstan fluffy and cuddly

3. DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in solving international issues of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

Sex is the correct word to use in this instance, as opposed to gender. Gender is correct only when talking about words. For example, blond is masculine gender, blonde feminine gender whereas John is of the male sex and Mary is of the female sex. They are not synonyms.

[/grammar nazi]

Sex is the correct word to use in this instance, as opposed to gender. Gender is correct only when talking about words. For example, blond is masculine gender, blonde feminine gender whereas John is of the male sex and Mary is of the female sex. They are not synonyms.

[/grammar nazi]

Heh, you can see the discussion on it earlier, hopefully no-one will object to changing it back. :)

I respectfully disagree.

Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

Collins Unabridged says otherwise

1. a set of two or more grammatical categories into which the nouns of certain languages are divided, sometimes but not neccessarily corresponding to the sex of the referent when animate
2. any of the categories, such as masculine, feminine, neuter, or common, whithin such a set
3. informal the state of being male, female, or neuter
4. Informal all the members of the same sex

Thus it would not be correct for a formal document

It’s not hugely important, so for the sake of not letting this degrade into a grammatical debate, I am about to toss a coin. Heads it’s Cobdenia, tails it’s fonzoland.

As soon as I find my RL wallet.

Actually, executive decision.

I did a search myself on google, and found this site:
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/g.html
It said:
Gender comes from the Latin genus, which means "kind" — any old kind of kind, not necessarily masculine and feminine. It was traditionally a technical term in grammar to describe the kinds of nouns and adjectives: in most European languages, they could be masculine, feminine, or (in a few languages) neuter.
According to the traditional distinction, nouns and adjectives have a gender, while people and animals have a sex. Language textbooks are careful to insist they're not the same thing: masculine isn't the same as male, nor is feminine the same as female. German Weib, for instance, means "wife," by definition female; the noun, though, is neuter. And in many languages the distribution of nouns into masculine, feminine, and neuter seems pretty arbitrary. The very fact that other languages like Swahili have more than three genders should remind us it's unwise to map gender onto sex.

In the twentieth century, though, feminist theorists began to use the word gender in a newish way, to distinguish biology from society. In this scheme, your plumbing determines your biological sex; your social role determines your gender. As it happens, most biological males behave in socially masculine ways; most biological women behave in socially feminine ways — but the distinction allows us to discuss people who don't follow the norms, including transgendered people, those with XXY chromosomes, and biological hermaphrodites. If you care to observe this distinction, feel free — it's often useful.

It's probably unwise, though, to allow gender to edge out sex altogether. Once gender began to be used to describe people, it became first a synonym, and then a substitute, for sex. The word sex still provokes giggles, and I can understand why people who prepare questionnaires would be glad to see it disappear after finding the "Sex" blank on a form filled in with "Yes, please" for the jillionth time. Still, using gender to refer to biological sex should be avoided, except where it avoids confusion or ambiguity.

In either the traditional system, in which gender applies only to grammatical categories, or the more recent feminist theory, in which it describes a social role, the word shouldn't be used to describe biology, for which sex has long been the preferred word. In practical terms: an ultrasound can't tell you the gender of a fetus, though it may tell you the sex. Cats and dogs don't have a gender, they have a sex.On the basis that I want the document to be as inclusive as possible and encompass transgender and other examples suggested above, and not just limit it to just male or female, it will remain gender.

I don’t think we need to split hairs on this matter, and I don’t think it makes a tremendous difference (especially when there are lots of other words to debate over) :)
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota) | Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1) | Author of Rights of indigenous peoples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8090030&postcount=90) | I http://www.country-from-the-heart.com/Img659.gif individual sovereignty (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468850) | Only nation to turn Cluichstan fluffy and cuddly

Could I point out: the author of "The Transgender Equality Act" had a motto of 'Gender is bullshit'. I think 'sex' is preferred by the T community.

Bloody feminists...

Could I point out: the author of "The Transgender Equality Act" had a motto of 'Gender is bullshit'. I think 'sex' is preferred by the T community.Next time I talk to someone from the transgender community I will be sure to ask them :D

A very interesting proposal and very well crafted. While we might find a nit or two to pick upon further consideration, we certainly have no serious, substantive objection. This would certainly negate the arguments that are raised from time to time that "the UN has no business legislating about [insert topic here]". That would be a most positive result.

We do see this, though, as much more in the nature of a mission statement than a charter. We believe a charter would include some coverage of mechanisms for achieving the stated ends as well as limitations on the nature and scope of the organization's activities. And we think it might be more palatable to those nations with valid concerns about the issue of sovereignty if it were titled and presented as a mission statement. It would clearly position it as a document that states "this is what we're going to try to do", while leaving "this is how we're going to do it" up to case-by-case determination.

If this approach is adopted, we'd suggest deletion of clauses 7 and 8 as out of sync with the purpose of the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I recall having the same conversation in the past, and I think I’d opted to put this more into the realm of a mission statement than an actual charter – mainly because of the mechanics of the game, if I remember correctly. We can’t make it a charter outright because the mechanics are there already.

If removing 7 & 8 is going to mean less conflict with the mechanics of the game and with UN members, then it’s quite right that they be removed. All they really do is pay homage to the game mechanics that exist. In fact, I was asked this back in ’04:The first one simply underlines the way the NS UN works - you have to fulfil the obligations (such as resolutions). It's a game mechanics thing and I was paying homage to that.

The second one is not an unreasonable request - if you join the UN you have obligations to the organisation. If the UN decides to legalise cannabis, your nation is expected to assist (which it does already if such a resolution were to pass). It's been in existence since the UN was created, and I'm disappointed you had not realised that. It’s not a big issue for them to be removed, since they merely underline what happens already. But, if it makes people happy then they will be removed :)

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
I would remove the phrase 'full employment' here. The meaning of the term is greatly disputed - for socialists and their opponents it conjures an image of an ideal (or impossible) world where everyone has a job, whereas for many economists it just means the maximum level of employment that does not cause inflation due to labour shortages. With such different viewpoints, I'm unsure the phrase is of much use other than to attract socialists.

I would remove the phrase 'full employment' here. The meaning of the term is greatly disputed - for socialists and their opponents it conjures an image of an ideal (or impossible) world where everyone has a job, whereas for many economists it just means the maximum level of employment that does not cause inflation due to labour shortages. With such different viewpoints, I'm unsure the phrase is of much use other than to attract socialists.Done, or rather will be once I submit this reply.

3. DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in solving international issues of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
There could be a slight problem with religion here - I can imagine nations in future saying "In our nation religion requests that we do X, and the Charter Of The UN says you can't discriminate on the grounds of religion, so your resolution to ban X is illegal".

Aside from the anthropocentrism, it all looks fine. Like Rixtex, I think it's the beginning of end of the need for UN legislation in specific areas. Just set up a few committees and let it all take care of itself. That's all, folks.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I would remove the phrase 'full employment' here. The meaning of the term is greatly disputed - for socialists and their opponents it conjures an image of an ideal (or impossible) world where everyone has a job, whereas for many economists it just means the maximum level of employment that does not cause inflation due to labour shortages. With such different viewpoints, I'm unsure the phrase is of much use other than to attract socialists.

Come on, I am sure some socialists can understand economics as well... ;)

Does it actually do anything?

I have three points. First, some white space would be easier on the eye. Second, this can't be 'strong', as it doesn't really force political change. Thirdly, there seems no point separating the introductory and active clauses, as they're the same. In fact, the latter are 'wrong': DETERMINED and RESOLUTE are not activating verbs. It should be DETERMINES, REMAINS RESOLUTE, etc.

Does it actually do anything?

Sure. About as much as any UN resolution ever does anything.

There could be a slight problem with religion here - I can imagine nations in future saying "In our nation religion requests that we do X, and the Charter Of The UN says you can't discriminate on the grounds of religion, so your resolution to ban X is illegal". 1. A resolution should not discriminate against a religion. If a resolution said religion A cannot do X, that’s different from saying nobody can do X. As long as the resolution in question treated everyone on an equal footing without distinction then there is no issue of discrimination. Aside from the anthropocentrism, it all looks fine.If I took out human when talking about human rights would that satisfy your concerns? Does it actually do anything?Yes, it definitely does. This draft resolution is intended to try and provide a clear mandate on what the UN should be aiming to achieve. Like Ausserland said, it’s a mission statement – it’s saying “this is the UN, and this is what we want to do” First, some white space would be easier on the eye. Fair enoughSecond, this can't be 'strong', as it doesn't really force political change.Maybe not strong, I can’t recall why I chose strong back in 04Thirdly, there seems no point separating the introductory and active clauses, as they're the same. In fact, the latter are 'wrong': DETERMINED and RESOLUTE are not activating verbs. It should be DETERMINES, REMAINS RESOLUTE, etc.I’ll have alook at the clauses shortly.

Okay, I have taken the concerns of various member states who have provided their feedback thus far into consideration, and made wholesale changes to the draft.

I'd like to highlight the removal of sections 7 & 8, and have added a new section 7 which highlights that the UN is the right place to address the issues highlighted in the rest of the proposal. Not a big thing, but something I realised would be worth adding, or at least adding till someone tears it to shreds :)

I'd like to highlight the removal of sections 7 & 8, and have added a new section 7 which highlights that the UN is the right place to address the issues highlighted in the rest of the proposal. Not a big thing, but something I realised would be worth adding, or at least adding till someone tears it to shreds :)

Does that clause mean that member-nations are supposed to surrender all rights of legislation in those fields to the UN? I could see the more extreme federalisers trying to interpret it in that way...

Does that clause mean that member-nations are supposed to surrender all rights of legislation in those fields to the UN? I could see the more extreme federalisers trying to interpret it in that way...Considering the UN can pretty much legislate on anything at the moment, it’s a restriction. It’s saying that the UN is here to A) Promote international peace and security B) Resolve international economic, social, health, and related problems C)International co-operation D) observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion

It doesn’t touch nations rights. It talks about international issues, and issues common to all peoples.

The clause (section 7) underlines that the UN is the right and proper place to address these issues – it does not mean it will be legislated on.

I’m sure the feds can probably use it as justification for something, just like the natSov’s can use it to justify non-interference in national matters.

If I took out human when talking about human rights would that satisfy your concerns?

My concerns with regard to anthropocentrism, certainly.

Given the recent change to clause 7, we regret that we could not support the proposal as written. The new clause 7 states:

7. DETERMINED that the United Nations is the right and proper forum to address these issues;

We firmly believe that the NSUN is not always the proper venue for legislation on all of the many issues which would fall into the categories previously enumerated in the proposal. We take this position based on practicality and the belief that some specific issues which would fall under the listed categories can be effectively and appropriately handled by an international body and that others cannot and should not be. Clause 7 suggests that any issue falling within the listed categories should be addressed at the NSUN level and nowhere else. We could in no way accept this.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Given the recent change to clause 7, we regret that we could not support the proposal as written. The new clause 7 states:

7. DETERMINED that the United Nations is the right and proper forum to address these issues;
What if it was:
7. DETERMINED that the United Nations is, in most cases, the right and proper forum to address these issues;

I'll happily change it :)

I'll happily change it :)

In fact, I've thought about it, and I will change it now.

Will be submitted either Sunday or monday evening GMT

Firstly, this is most definitely not Strong. Significant at most, I'd say Mild.

Secondly, there are no operative clauses. I'm not complaining because this 'doesn't do anything'; I'm complaining because I don't think this is properly formatted. I don't see the point of separating out introductory and operative clauses, if they're the same thing in effect.

Thirdly, I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I trip over earlier points.

Fourthly, I like the idea: I have some comments, though.

The General Assembly,
(Yes, I am that picky.) Why start with this? I understand legislation is voted in by the GA, but this seems a perfect time to use 'The United Nations' - to demonstrate that this is not just a legislative act, and not just something for the politicians and diplomats, but for all member citizens.

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;
Very nice. I think this is a fine introductory line.

EMPHASIZING the need to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained;
Which this proposal doesn't do. Perhaps that's not intended, but without an international court or really any mechanical means of doing so, this clause seems to me to be working the wrong way. That is, unless you're laying the groundwork for something like the Rome Statute, which is ok, but seems a little redundant. I would propose either reframing this is as a reminder that these obligations do need to be maintained, or at least vaguely attempting something to fill this 'need'.

RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom;
I really don't understand what 'in larger freedom' means. Does it mean 'for all'? Because that might be a simpler substitute. If, on the other hand, you were going for 'larger freedom', then I would frame that separately. So, depending on which was intended, how do these alternatives sound?

"RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life [living?] for all;"

or

"RESOLUTE in promoting social progress, better standards of life and wider social, economic and political freedoms [for all];"

SEEKING to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours;
My concern with this is not the peace line, which is fine - and in fact I like it, because it implies other aspects of 'neighbourliness', such as pollution control, trade, immigration, etc. - but with 'tolerance'. Do we tolerate FGM? Do we tolerate torture? (Of course we do in Gruenberg, but this is an OOC comment ;)). Do we tolerate prejudice? I think there is time for tolerance, and a time for eradication. That said, I admit the relativist in me does rather like the idea of universal tolerance, even of unpopular beliefs, so perhaps it's best left as is.

At this point I should probably note that it is perhaps indicative of the changing nature of the UN that at this stage, as opposed to anyone two years ago, such legalistic, pedantic points are being raised. I do apologise for that, and I know that as these are not operative anyway, they 'don't matter', but I think if we are to have a UN charter, it should be an endorsement of good policy.

READY to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security;
No no no no. Gruenberg is most assuredly not prepared to 'unite' with others in the name of 'security' of another nation. Yes, I know the UN cannot have a military, but this is setting a precedent for a mutual defence pact or some other loopy idea. And yes, it's toothless and vague enough such that the 'strength' might mean 'diplomacy' or whatever, but still, this sits very awkwardly with us. Would you consider:

"STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security"

or something similar? I just don't like the idea of 'unit' - the UN is not an alliance.

SEEKING to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest;
Whilst I have no especial problem with this clause, I guarantee, I absolutely guarantee, others will, and you'll get screams of "legitimising the invasion of Chechnya!" or similar in the debate. One thing I would point out is the UN has pretty much never, except in the odd weapons ban preamble, formally committed itself to peace. That seems to me to be a priority. You need to be careful that by - I'm sure intentionally - not defining 'common interest', you are running the risk of this being abused. I know this because Gruenberg will most certainly abuse it every chance we get: so long as we say it's in the common interest, away with the cluster bombs, right?

In other words, you're not specifying what principles or what methods, there is no barometer of common interest. And isn't this meant to be an ideological lyre-plucking hymn to the world's - sniffle, *wipes tear from eye*, oh if my mother could see this - true potential for peaceful, loving, dolphin-nuzzling harmony? So be idealistic: talk about global peace as a potential absolute, armed force as something that can be eliminated, and resolve something fluffy in between. Hmm. That probably sounds unhelpful. What I mean is: I think this is a bad compromise, as currently worded - the pacifists will see it as rekindling the spirit of 'Fight The Axis Of Evil', the militarists will either abuse it or ignore it, or scoff at its lack of realism.

INTENDING to employ the international “machine” for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples;
I do not understand what this means or why "machine" is in inverted commas. It also seems quite a weak line to end the preamble on. And what about the other 'advancements': cultural? educational? spiritual? political? Perhaps not all of those are appropriate, but the first two certainly seem important.

Proclaims the following;
Except you're not. This isn't a proclamation: it's a series of "Oh wouldn't it be nice" ponderings. Which, to reiterate, is fine, and is exactly what the Charter/Mission Statement [i]should be, but I think it's, frankly, bad legislative practice to frame such as an operative section. Wouldn't it be better to have the whole thing as an extended preamble, and end with a single declaratory line?

1. DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to bring about by peaceful means, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace;
This seems to me a little like Chapter VI of the RL UN Charter - Pacific Settlement of Disputes - and could perhaps be expanded upon as such: that nations must seek diplomatic resolve to the situation prior to declaring war (although not engaging in a military action).

2. RESOLVED to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
I find the inclusion of 'self-determination' interesting. To me, this is hampered by games mechanics. The nation is the principle unit in NS; different ethnic groups cannot really form new states on their own, except in RP terms. Even then, though, they would not achieve UN representation unless a puppet were created. Further, self-determination is not an absolute: if this doesn't refer to either democracy or libertarianism, what does it mean? Also, do 'peoples' have rights? Are they equal? For example, Gruenberger crews aren't allowed to whale; the nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnGut tribespeople are, because they are indigenous.

3. DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in solving international issues of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
I would add 'political' and 'military' - or some other word, possibly 'security' - to the first list, and possibly 'ethnicity' and 'gender identity' to the latter.

4. RESOLUTE that the United Nations shall promote rights for all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all including:
Ok, here is what I would suggest. Take this list, and put it at the end. Have all the other clauses as preamble, leading to one final operative clause, "RESOLVES to secure..." or similar. All these other clauses are saying what we should do; this one alone seems to say what we are going to do.

5. RESOLVED to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these ends;
Um...no. The great thing about the international community is the diverse range of cultures we have. The actions you mention in 4 are all very worthy: what is truly great is how different nations can have very different methods of implementation, but achieve common goals. We shouldn't be 'harmonizing' actions - we should be accepting of different methods. For example: high corporation tax works very well in one state, and in another, unregulated free enterprise brings about the greatest common good. Both have housing, food and clothing for their people. Try to mix the systems, and it'll combust. Harmonization is bad. We should be celebrating at least some differences, not creating a world state.

6. DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members;
Whilst true in terms of law, it's not true in terms of voting. But yes.

7. DETERMINED that the United Nations is, in most cases, the right and proper forum to address these issues;
I don't like this line. Firstly, which issues? Secondly, 'most' strikes me as entirely arbitrary. What I would prefer is a 'balance' line, which promotes actions of the UN for which international action is appropriate whilst at the same time affirming that there are considerations which should remain national or further local.

8. AFFIRMS its resolve in this matter.
Yes, that would be what the whole resolution is saying. There is no point to this line. [Yes, I know official documents often say 'determined to stay resolved', but I don't think it serves any purpose in NS, given we have a repeal function.]

Still, I like it; I hope some of my comments are helpful, and don't come across as needlessly lacking sense.

In fact, I've thought about it, and I will change it now.

Will be submitted either Sunday or monday evening GMT

Would you consider waiting one more week? I think this still needs polishing... (And yes, I know I have been lazy and not commented so far. I will wait until you implement Gruen's suggestions.)

First of all Gruenberg, thanks for supplying so much input. It is appreciated
Firstly, this is most definitely not Strong. Significant at most, I'd say Mild.Mild is what I was thinking, I did strong the first time round. No idea why went for strong, because it really is not affecting nations that much.

Secondly, there are no operative clauses. I'm not complaining because this 'doesn't do anything'; I'm complaining because I don't think this is properly formatted. I don't see the point of separating out introductory and operative clauses, if they're the same thing in effect. I’ll have to think about that, but you are probably right.Thirdly, I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I trip over earlier points.No problem, most of it has been centered on gender and a few bits which have been removed, so can’t see you tripping over anything significant.(Yes, I am that picky.) Why start with this? I understand legislation is voted in by the GA, but this seems a perfect time to use 'The United Nations' - to demonstrate that this is not just a legislative act, and not just something for the politicians and diplomats, but for all member citizens.That’s actually a lot better than mine, and more in line with what I want. Consider it changed.Which this proposal doesn't do. Perhaps that's not intended, but without an international court or really any mechanical means of doing so, this clause seems to me to be working the wrong way. That is, unless you're laying the groundwork for something like the Rome Statute, which is ok, but seems a little redundant. I would propose either reframing this is as a reminder that these obligations do need to be maintained, or at least vaguely attempting something to fill this 'need'.Consider it tweaked – now reads “MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;”I really don't understand what 'in larger freedom' means. Does it mean 'for all'? Because that might be a simpler substitute. If, on the other hand, you were going for 'larger freedom', then I would frame that separately. So, depending on which was intended, how do these alternatives sound?Those worlds are trying to imply that development is possible only in conditions of freedom, and that people can only benefit from political freedom when they have at least a fair chance of reaching decent living standards. But “larger freedom” can be taken as embracing the other aims too. You can be truly free only if you are secure from war and violence, and if your fundamental rights and dignity are upheld by law. Human rights, development and security are mutually interdependent, and taken together they add up to larger freedom.
They also form the three main planks which can definitely have global appeal today – simple, readily understandable aims, which clearly matter to ordinary people.

I also wanted to remind the governments of the world that they are in the United Nations to represent not only themselves but their peoples, who expect them to work together for the aims set out in the Charter. Of course, the UN often falls short of these noble aspirations, since it reflects the realities of world politics. So instead of saying this, and offending those nations that may not agree with that idea, it’s better to suggest it, and work towards those aims in the future.

Moreover, I would have gone over my character limit.My concern with this is not the peace line, which is fine - and in fact I like it, because it implies other aspects of 'neighbourliness', such as pollution control, trade, immigration, etc. - but with 'tolerance'. Do we tolerate FGM? Do we tolerate torture? (Of course we do in Gruenberg, but this is an OOC comment ;)). Do we tolerate prejudice? I think there is time for tolerance, and a time for eradication. That said, I admit the relativist in me does rather like the idea of universal tolerance, even of unpopular beliefs, so perhaps it's best left as is.I think a degree of tolerance should be practiced, but there is a point where tolerance is not viable. Perhaps this needs to be edited to – “SEEKING to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, as far as possible;”At this point I should probably note that it is perhaps indicative of the changing nature of the UN that at this stage, as opposed to anyone two years ago, such legalistic, pedantic points are being raised. I do apologise for that, and I know that as these are not operative anyway, they 'don't matter', but I think if we are to have a UN charter, it should be an endorsement of good policy.I think we have better standards than we did before, so it’s important something like this reflects those good standards.No no no no. Gruenberg is most assuredly not prepared to 'unite' with others in the name of 'security' of another nation. Yes, I know the UN cannot have a military, but this is setting a precedent for a mutual defence pact or some other loopy idea. And yes, it's toothless and vague enough such that the 'strength' might mean 'diplomacy' or whatever, but still, this sits very awkwardly with us. Would you consider:

"STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security"

or something similar? I just don't like the idea of 'unit' - the UN is not an alliance.Was not the intention for military pressure to be permitted, more diplomatic. Your suggestion has been adopted.

Whilst I have no especial problem with this clause, I guarantee, I absolutely guarantee, others will, and you'll get screams of "legitimising the invasion of Chechnya!" or similar in the debate. One thing I would point out is the UN has pretty much never, except in the odd weapons ban preamble, formally committed itself to peace. That seems to me to be a priority. You need to be careful that by - I'm sure intentionally - not defining 'common interest', you are running the risk of this being abused. I know this because Gruenberg will most certainly abuse it every chance we get: so long as we say it's in the common interest, away with the cluster bombs, right?

In other words, you're not specifying what principles or what methods, there is no barometer of common interest. And isn't this meant to be an ideological lyre-plucking hymn to the world's - sniffle, *wipes tear from eye*, oh if my mother could see this - true potential for peaceful, loving, dolphin-nuzzling harmony? So be idealistic: talk about global peace as a potential absolute, armed force as something that can be eliminated, and resolve something fluffy in between. Hmm. That probably sounds unhelpful. What I mean is: I think this is a bad compromise, as currently worded - the pacifists will see it as rekindling the spirit of 'Fight The Axis Of Evil', the militarists will either abuse it or ignore it, or scoff at its lack of realism. Fair point (you are making a few of those) – how about “SEEKING to ensure that disputes of situations which may lead to a breach of the peace seek resolution by peaceful means;”I do not understand what this means or why "machine" is in inverted commas. It also seems quite a weak line to end the preamble on. And what about the other 'advancements': cultural? educational? spiritual? political? Perhaps not all of those are appropriate, but the first two certainly seem important.:)
“INTENDING to employ the international “machine” for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible; “Except you're not. This isn't a proclamation: it's a series of "Oh wouldn't it be nice" ponderings. Which, to reiterate, is fine, and is exactly what the Charter/Mission Statement [i]should be, but I think it's, frankly, bad legislative practice to frame such as an operative section. Wouldn't it be better to have the whole thing as an extended preamble, and end with a single declaratory line?Okay, that would make it more clearly a mission statement, which I can live with.This seems to me a little like Chapter VI of the RL UN Charter - Pacific Settlement of Disputes - and could perhaps be expanded upon as such: that nations must seek diplomatic resolve to the situation prior to declaring war (although not engaging in a military action).Changed, “DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end - settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace shall be resolved by peaceful means before military means;”I find the inclusion of 'self-determination' interesting. To me, this is hampered by games mechanics. The nation is the principle unit in NS; different ethnic groups cannot really form new states on their own, except in RP terms.And through daily issues, of course.Even then, though, they would not achieve UN representation unless a puppet were created. Further, self-determination is not an absolute: if this doesn't refer to either democracy or libertarianism, what does it mean? Also, do 'peoples' have rights? Are they equal? For example, Gruenberger crews aren't allowed to whale; the nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnGut tribespeople are, because they are indigenous.I hope you don’t want a definition in here for self determination– we do not have the space! And I’m not sure what you would suggest in it’s place.I would add 'political' and 'military' - or some other word, possibly 'security' - to the first list, and possibly 'ethnicity' and 'gender identity' to the latter.Okay :)Ok, here is what I would suggest. Take this list, and put it at the end. Have all the other clauses as preamble, leading to one final operative clause, "RESOLVES to secure..." or similar. All these other clauses are saying what we should do; this one alone seems to say what we are going to do.I think the one before also works as an operative clause – see what you think to the revised version.Um...no. The great thing about the international community is the diverse range of cultures we have. The actions you mention in 4 are all very worthy: what is truly great is how different nations can have very different methods of implementation, but achieve common goals. We shouldn't be 'harmonizing' actions - we should be accepting of different methods. For example: high corporation tax works very well in one state, and in another, unregulated free enterprise brings about the greatest common good. Both have housing, food and clothing for their people. Try to mix the systems, and it'll combust. Harmonization is bad. We should be celebrating at least some differences, not creating a world state.It’s not exactly what I meant, but I see the confusion. The UN should be the forum to accomplish the aims in 4 (soon to be clause 2 given the rewrite). This bit needs to be rewritten, along with number 7 – as they are meant to say basically the same thing – the UN is here to go about sorting out these issues. I think that means getting rid of them both, and doing something different.


Whilst true in terms of law, it's not true in terms of voting. But yes.Might expand to explain no one nation is more powerful that the other, that just because nation a says it is true, does not mean nation b is instantly wrong.

I’ve updated it to say “DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;” But I suspect this needs more work.

I don't like this line. Firstly, which issues? Secondly, 'most' strikes me as entirely arbitrary. What I would prefer is a 'balance' line, which promotes actions of the UN for which international action is appropriate whilst at the same time affirming that there are considerations which should remain national or further local.Like I said, I think this can be merged with no 5.Yes, that would be what the whole resolution is saying. There is no point to this line. [Yes, I know official documents often say 'determined to stay resolved', but I don't think it serves any purpose in NS, given we have a repeal function.] For me it’s a matter of style, but that should be rewritten. ”Determined to remain seized on the matter” (meaning the UN retains the right to adjust or repeal this)Still, I like it; I hope some of my comments are helpful, and don't come across as needlessly lacking sense.They were definitely helpdul, and as you can see the majority of them were actioned.

Need to work on a clause 2 to encompass the previous versions clauses enforcing that the UN is the right place to do all of this, but otherwise it’s pretty good. :)

Also could do with input on the self-determination section, which i shall ponder over the weekend.

I’ll be adding a revised copy to the original post, and also to the next post.

Again thank you for your input. If we have space, a co-authorship may need to be added.

Would you consider waiting one more week? I think this still needs polishing... (And yes, I know I have been lazy and not commented so far. I will wait until you implement Gruen's suggestions.)Yes, I will. It's waited over a year - a week will not be a problem. :)

Charter of the UN
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Hirota
Description:

'The United Nations:

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;

RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom;

SEEKING to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, as far as possible;

STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security through diplomatic means;

SEEKING to ensure that disputes of situations which may lead to a breach of the peace seek resolution by peaceful means;

INTENDING to employ the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end - settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace shall be resolved by peaceful means before military means;

EAGER to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

1. RESOLVED that the United Nations shall promote rights for all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all including:
a. Higher standards of living, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation;
c. Universal respect for, and observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
d. To ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
e. To promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies with a view to the achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes;

2. Determined to remain seized on the matter.

This is now the most up to date draft. Hirota intends to submit this on monday.

You have to full support of Minnesnowta and the Reigon of Expensive Car lovers.

SEEKING to ensure that disputes of situations which may lead to a breach of the peace seek resolution by peaceful means;
Suggested rephrasing:

"SEEKING to ensure that parties to disputes or situations which may lead to conflict seek resolution by peaceful means;"

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end - settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace shall be resolved by peaceful means before military means;
As above, I think this could be worded better:

"DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflict;"

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
Why is this in twice...?

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;
The second clause needs a stronger break, either a conjunction or a semi-colon, or else it's run-on. So perhaps: "...of all members, and that Members are..."

1. RESOLVED
Should be 'RESOLVES'.

2. Determined
If you're going to include this, then it should be capitalised, and be 'DETERMINES'.

From: (deptofstate@gov.baz)
***Official Transmission***

Assalam u Alaikum Wa Rahmatulahi Wa Baakatuhu
Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God

The government of Blanco Azul wishes to give our opinion in the creation of the UN Charter.
We greatly approve of this section:

d.To ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

But it runs counter to a large body of legislation already in existence, put simply we feel that this body is governed by a tyranny of the majority, and in effect there is no respect in this body for indigenous cultural, religious, ethical, or political beliefs and practices. And this body passes well intentioned, but simple-minded legislation without much regard to the genuine harm that it causes to complex social structures.

We thereby propose a supermajority required for the passing of all legislation that compels nations, and a simple majority required for it's retraction, or the elimination of the power to compel compliance entirely. As it is the sincere worry of our government that we risk open revolt if we are forced to amass the power required to enforce the measures from the world body. [OC: In all likelyhood an anarchic state would just pay lipservice and go on ignoring the UN.]

Jazakallahu Khairan

Aqil al-Hariri
Secretary of State
Ciudad Blanco y Azul

Games mechanics.

[OC: So it is :D though it still does not change the fact that it would be impossible for an anarchic state to enforce anything as spontanious order theory would overide established order, including UN resolutions.

A State would not enforce a measure that would directly undermine its government, or a core tenant. Though it is impossible for a state to go rouge, so all measures must be followed through even if they mean civil war.

Silly, No?]

Suggested rephrasing:

"SEEKING to ensure that parties to disputes or situations which may lead to conflict seek resolution by peaceful means;"


As above, I think this could be worded better:

"DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflict;"


Why is this in twice...?


The second clause needs a stronger break, either a conjunction or a semi-colon, or else it's run-on. So perhaps: "...of all members, and that Members are..."


Should be 'RESOLVES'.


If you're going to include this, then it should be capitalised, and be 'DETERMINES'.

I'll action them, and congratulations, you have a co-authorship (considering you have rewritten the whole thing ;) )

Very poetic, and very nice. You could vary the operative words a bit more, but that's minor. My main problem is that you seem to have a number of points scattered through the text, rather than making the intent of each clause clear.

SEEKING to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, as far as possible;

The UN doesn't seek this. More appropriately, member nations or peoples seek this. Suggestion:

SEEKING to further the noble goals of tolerance and peaceful coexistence among peoples;

SEEKING to ensure that disputes of situations which may lead to a breach of the peace seek resolution by peaceful means;

Too many seeks.

SEEKING to ensure that disputes potentially leading to a breach of peace are resolved by peaceful means;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security, and to that end - settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace shall be resolved by peaceful means before military means;

Isn't this clause repetitive?

EAGER to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Same here. It seems to be going in circles...

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, military or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for rights of all peoples and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

Stereophonic... ;) Anyway, securing is redundant; also military is part of security (the external part of it); rights of individuals sound better than of peoples. Suggestion:

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political, or security character, and to promote respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

Again, seems a bit repetitious... but maybe that is just me.

From here onwards, I would switch to operative wording (RESOLVES, etc.).

1. RESOLVED that the United Nations shall promote rights for all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all including:

I prefer "the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals."

a. Higher standards of living, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

Too many 'and.' I suggest

a. Higher standards of living, economic development, and social progress;

b. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation;

Too many 'and.'

c. Universal respect for, and observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

Isn't this written somewhere before?

d. To ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

Part a deals with economic and social advancement, why repeat it?

e. To promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies with a view to the achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes;

Again, some overlap. Though a clause specifically directed to research does make sense.

2. Determined to remain seized on the matter.

OK.

EDIT: I noticed I was repeating some previous comments. Fluffy apologies.

d. To ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

We'd suggest "promote" instead of "ensure". There are too many factors involved in such things as economic development for ensuring them to be a realistic goal for the NSUN.

Also, we concur with the excellent comments by the distinguished representative of Fonzoland.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Rewritten once more, thanks to the feedback from Gruen, Fonzo and Ausser.

'The United Nations:

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;

RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom;

SEEKING to further the noble goals of tolerance and peaceful coexistence among peoples, as far as possible;

STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security through diplomatic means;

SEEKING to ensure that disputes potentially leading to a breach of peace and security are resolved by peaceful means;

INTENDING to employ the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflict

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals without distinction;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, and that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

1. RESOLVES that the United Nations shall promote fundamental rights and freedoms for all peoples all including:
a. Higher standards of living, economic development, and social progress;
b. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems with international cultural and educational cooperation providing these solutions.
c. Universal respect for, and observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
d. To promote, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
e. To promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies;

2. DETERMINED to remain seized on the matter.

Co-authored by Gruenberg

Again, my problem is with structure, not with content. I still think you have each topic you want to address spread around different clauses, and that they should rather be concentrated in one preambulatory and one operative clause per issue.

RESOLUTE in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom;

...

INTENDING to employ the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

The first one is encompassed by the second one.

1.STRIVING to procure for all members of all nations peace and security through diplomatic means;

2.SEEKING to further the noble goals of tolerance and peaceful coexistence among peoples, as far as possible;

3.SEEKING to ensure that disputes potentially leading to a breach of peace and security are resolved by peaceful means;

4.DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflict

5.DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals without distinction;
(numbered for ease of reference)

For instance:
1,3,4 are basically saying the same thing
5 seems to overlap 2, and to some extent all the others

1. RESOLVES that the United Nations shall promote fundamental rights and freedoms for all peoples all including:

One 'all' too many.


a. Higher standards of living, economic development, and social progress;
b. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems with international cultural and educational cooperation providing these solutions.
c. Universal respect for, and observance of rights of all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;
d. To promote, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
e. To promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies;

a seems to be covered by d, among other overlaps. I suggest you break up the problems you intend to treat into categories, eg socioeconomic, security, research, tolerance/human rights. Then you can make each clause strictly about one topic. As it is, it looks messy.

2. DETERMINED to remain seized on the matter.

Couldn't this be included in clause one, making it a single operative clause? Then you could phrase it:

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby resolves to remain seized on the promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms for all peoples, including:

gravedig. It's been suggested this might be a good time to bring this back and actually campaign for it this time (thankfully I now have access to nationstates.net to run a TG campaign at work ;) )

I'm going to do some streamlining of the draft in line with some of Fonzo's suggestions.

and here it is.

The United Nations:

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;

RESOLUTE in employing the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflict

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals and among all peoples without distinction;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, and that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

1. The United Nations hereby resolves to remain seized on the promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms for all peoples, including:
a. The promotion of, with respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, standards of living, economic development, social progress, and educational advancement;
b. Universal respect and observance of rights for all peoples without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, ideology, language or religion;
c. To promote international co-operation with one another in research;
d. To promote international co-operation with one another to seek solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems

Co-authored by Gruenberg

Category?

Category?

I was thinking the furtherment of democracy, as arguably some of those values this draft would propose to enhance are considered (by me at least) democratic in value.

Whilst it has elements which would be under human rights, international security, political stability and social justice, I think assigning it to one of these would place too much of an emphasis on that category.

Of course, a moderators input on this is always welcome.

It looks this is a nessasary thing and I suggest to make sure you are open to changes. Also I was told You have a character limit of 3500 characters including spaces and line breaks (actually....double the characters on line breaks). And this has 3438 so I would watch it to make sure you don't go over.

It looks this is a nessasary thing and I suggest to make sure you are open to changes. Also I was told You have a character limit of 3500 characters including spaces and line breaks (actually....double the characters on line breaks). And this has 3438 so I would watch it to make sure you don't go over.

I'm always open to changes - this baby is over 2 years old, so it's had plenty of consultation time ;)

lol this is the first time I saw it I am surprised it lasted this long without being dropped or proposed. :eek: :eek:

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be respected;We cannot do this, unless you're referring to treaties formulated by this body. Change to: "... under which justice and respect for international law ..."

Also, you got two "respects" in the same sentence.

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security and, to that end, to strive for peaceful resolution to disputes and situations leading to conflictWe cannot do this either. Even in the hypothetical this seems to be borderline MetaGaming.

c. To promote international co-operation with one another in research;
d. To promote international co-operation with one another to seek solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problemsEek. Get rid of the "with one another"s (wrong context).

As it is, there is way too much fluffy gobbledygook here for you to expect any kind of support from the Kenny camp.

Good luck.

Does this actually do anything?

Just wondering, but how long does it take for admission into the UN?

1. RESOLVED that the United Nations shall promote rights for all peoples and fundamental freedoms for all including:
a. Higher standards of living, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

The people of Airatum take issue with the assumption in 1a that standards of living should increase in all areas. This is a capitalistic assumption. The people of Airatum, which was once a capitalist nation, have intentionally moderated their standard of living after seeing the catastrophic effects that open-ended growth and seeking after ever greater consumption and comfort can have. After decades of self restraint our forests have returned to the point where they draw tourists from around the world, and we have enough resources that the people of our country have their needs met.

We recognize that many peoples of the world are in poverty, and support the UN's attempts to raise their 'standard of living'. We also recognize that many nations of the world have become accustomed to a standard of living that destroys their environment, their health, and their sanity. Impending crises of Peak Oil, Global Warming, and Food Shortages should be leading many countries to moderating their standards of living, not continuing to increase them ad infinitum.

For this reason we can not support the current resolution.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Just wondering, but how long does it take for admission into the UN?
It can take as much as 24 hours to recieve the e-mail, but more importantly, what does your question have to do with this thread's topic?

Does this actually do anything?
It establishes a charter for the UN. What do you want it to do?

It establishes a charter for the UN. What do you want it to do?

It could strengthen the level of enforcement required by UN members for the other resolutions. It could limit the power of other resolutions. It could create commitees that review legislation. It could discuss census, or other basic functions of governing.

lol this is the first time I saw it I am surprised it lasted this long without being dropped or proposed. :eek: :eek:It is something of a slow burner, isn't it? Also got bushmeat to work on as well - main reason being for the last year I have barely had access to nationstates.net and never can be bothered to take the time needed to run a TG campaign whilst at home.

Now I do have access to nationstates.net at work, so might as well use it :)As it is, there is way too much fluffy gobbledygook here for you to expect any kind of support from the Kenny camp.

Good luck.OOC: Thanks for the suggestions for improvements, much appreciated. :)

IC: You aint a UN member anyway, so no worries :DThe people of Airatum take issue with the assumption in 1a that standards of living should increase in all areas. This is a capitalistic assumption. The people of Airatum, which was once a capitalist nation, have intentionally moderated their standard of living after seeing the catastrophic effects that open-ended growth and seeking after ever greater consumption and comfort can have. After decades of self restraint our forests have returned to the point where they draw tourists from around the world, and we have enough resources that the people of our country have their needs met.

We recognize that many peoples of the world are in poverty, and support the UN's attempts to raise their 'standard of living'. We also recognize that many nations of the world have become accustomed to a standard of living that destroys their environment, their health, and their sanity. Impending crises of Peak Oil, Global Warming, and Food Shortages should be leading many countries to moderating their standards of living, not continuing to increase them ad infinitum.

For this reason we can not support the current resolution.If it's a matter of removing that single word, or using an alternative word, I'm happy to do so. Watch for the next version coming soon.Does this actually do anything?I'll paraphrase Miktivity from 2004. It is a declaration...In the corporate world it would translate to a mission statement The amusing thing is Ritex back in '04 was worried this proposal would do too much :)It could strengthen the level of enforcement required by UN members for the other resolutions. Compliance is something that is either game mechanics, or role play - I don't see any need to tinker with either of those. Game mechanics is already absolute - it does not need further enforcement as it is absolutely enforced. I don't want to touch roleplay either, as for many people that's a big part of the game, and I don't want to spoil their fun but making it harder to roleplay non-compliance either. :)It could limit the power of other resolutions.It's not my place (and it is illegal) to modify existing resolutions. It's a repeal (which is done via the repeal process) or nothing.It could create commitees that review legislation.See previous response It could discuss census, or other basic functions of governing.I imagine a likely response would be that it is not my place to tell other nations how to govern. In many areas I'd agree, the UN is not here to Micromanage - I feel it is here to address broad issues affecting all nations and their inhabitants (or notable groups), and international issues.

It establishes a charter for the UN. What do you want it to do?

It calls itself a 'charter', but because of how the UN's rules work it's as easy to repeal (as far as the technical details go) as any other resolution -- which a a true 'constitution'-type law wouldn't be -- and can have no direct effect on the passage or rejection of other resolutions... So, apart from expressing some high-minded rhetoric, what does it actually do?
I don't particularly want this to do anything solid, given that if it did then the general tone of its current wording would probably have it enshrine the UN's "right" to over-ride national governments in the 'Human Rights' & 'Social Justice' fields, I just don't see what practical use it serves...

I'll paraphrase Miktivity from 2004.It is a declaration...In the corporate world it would translate to a mission statement


So, in other words, nothing but rhetoric... Therefore illegal?

So, in other words, nothing but rhetoric... Therefore illegal?It was submitted before, and although failed to reach quorum was not deleted. Therefore, not illegal.

Secondly, Hack seemed more interested in the category rather than any other blatant illegality (although I do not know how much attention was spent on the details). I'd have thought if this was blatantly illegal, it would have been deleted before, or would have been mentioned since :)

Thirdly, it doesn't seem to offend under Rules For UN Proposals either.

Fourthly, another resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50) has set precedent, and that was written by a present-day mod.

It was submitted before, and although failed to reach quorum was not deleted. Therefore, not illegal.

You might want to back up your therefore wagon, mate. Several illegal resolutions have reached quorum and even passed. So it is not guaranteed that your Charter simply didn't get caught for some reason.

You might want to back up your therefore wagon, mate. Several illegal resolutions have reached quorum and even passed. So it is not guaranteed that your Charter simply didn't get caught for some reason.I've added additional reasons since, please consult the previous post. :)

I've added additional reasons since, please consult the previous post. :)

Very well then. Thanks for letting me know.

Secondly, Hack seemed more interested in the category rather than any other blatant illegality (although I do not know how much attention was spent on the details). I'd have thought if this was blatantly illegal, it would have been deleted before, or would have been mentioned since :)

You would think, and so would I, but one never knows. :)

Thirdly, it doesn't seem to offend under Rules For UN Proposals either.

No? It doesn't violate the "proposals must be more then just rhetoric" rule? And if it is indeed more than just rhetoric, it's a massive cross-category problem you're facing.

Fourthly, another resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50) has set precedent, and that was written by a present-day mod.

The difficulty is that Fris's resolution actually required things of nations, and yours doesn't.

No? It doesn't violate the "proposals must be more then just rhetoric" rule? And if it is indeed more than just rhetoric, it's a massive cross-category problem you're facing.Absolutely, and I acknowledged that earlier, I happen to think it'll either be furtherment of democracy or political stability.The difficulty is that Fris's resolution actually required things of nations, and yours doesn't.I disagree - all it did was restate what was already present in game mechanics. The only thing I can see it doing was forcing nations to conform to UN resolutions - which nations already had to do. Then it talked about roleplaying, which is pretty much nothing to do with the mechanics, or UN resolutions apart from what roleplayers choose to conform to (which as I understand is considered bad form to ignore resolutions outright - but roleplaying is not my strong suit in NS, too much time spent playing AD&D in my youth :)).

Absolutely, and I acknowledged that earlier, I happen to think it'll either be furtherment of democracy or political stability.

Right. It's still fuzzy in either, but those are the most likely candidates.

I disagree - all it did was restate what was already present in game mechanics. The only thing I can see it doing was forcing nations to conform to UN resolutions - which nations already had to do. Then it talked about roleplaying, which is pretty much nothing to do with the mechanics, or UN resolutions apart from what roleplayers choose to conform to (which as I understand is considered bad form to ignore resolutions outright - but roleplaying is not my strong suit in NS, too much time spent playing AD&D in my youth :)).

It did restate the game mechanics, yes, but it did so in a way that required things of nations, which yours has not done.

Examples:

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 6 § 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.

Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Article 8 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.

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.

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.

It did restate the game mechanics, yes, but it did so in a way that required things of nations, which yours has not done. But if something is simply restating something they already had to do as memberstates, is it really requiring anything?

My point is, when this was implemented, did it actually make any statisitical changes, or change how people had to play the game? Will it make any changes if it ever gets repealled?

I can't answer if it made any difference at all on anything, the mods at the time would be able to.

time for another redraft.

The United Nations:

EAGER to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of all peoples, in the dignity and worth of the person, in the equal rights of all peoples and of nations large and small;

MINDFUL of the need to promote conditions under which justice and respect for international law can be respected;

RESOLUTE in employing the United Nations for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and respect of cultural, educational, spiritual and political rights of all peoples as far as possible;

DETERMINED to maintain international peace and security

DETERMINED to achieve international cooperation in securing international issues of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, political or security character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals and among all peoples without distinction;

DETERMINED that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members, and that Members are considered equal contributors to the work of the UN;

1. The United Nations hereby resolves to remain seized on the promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms for all peoples, including:
a. The promotion of, with respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, standards of living, economic development, social progress, and educational advancement;
b. Universal respect and observance of rights for all peoples without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, ideology, language or religion;
c. To promote international co-operation in research;
d. To promote international co-operation to seek solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems

Co-authored by Gruenberg

The people of Airatum thank the author for addressing our concern.

We would like to point out the worth of a charter, or 'mission statement' to the representatives who argue that this resolution doesn't 'do' anything.

A document like this helps focus debate. If the UN passes this resolution, we are effectively agreeing that these statements are our core values and purpose. All future debate over resolutions can refer back to this document, weighing whether the current resolution being debated upholds or conflicts with the UN charter.

It doesn't enact legislation, but it can shape debate over future legislation.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum thank the author for addressing our concern.No problems, it's what the drafting process is here for after all :)We would like to point out the worth of a charter, or 'mission statement' to the representatives who argue that this resolution doesn't 'do' anything.

A document like this helps focus debate. If the UN passes this resolution, we are effectively agreeing that these statements are our core values and purpose. All future debate over resolutions can refer back to this document, weighing whether the current resolution being debated upholds or conflicts with the UN charter.

It doesn't enact legislation, but it can shape debate over future legislation.Thank you for phrasing it better than I could have at the moment (it's friday afternoon, I want to be in the pub watching the world cup, not here!)

Same question Geun got over his transparency draft...

How does this affect member nations? What laws will be inacted to bring them into compliance? Assuming you go for FoD, how will the rhetoric in this Proposal increase Political Freedoms in member nations?

Same question Geun got over his transparency draft...

How does this affect member nations? What laws will be inacted to bring them into compliance? Assuming you go for FoD, how will the rhetoric in this Proposal increase Political Freedoms in member nations?I will need to ponder this further....