NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal should sit well with a few people.

This is something I (Kryozerkia) came up with after I left the UN. I have recently returned as Dor Cirion.

National Sovereignty Rights

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Dor Cirion

Description

Whereas individuals have the right to choice and the right to social justice;

Whereas nations have the right to freedom in their proceedings;

Whereas every nation is different in its policies, culture and heritage;

Wherein this, we of Dor Cirion propose that the following be considered and passed as a resolution and put into practice.

All nations in the UN are equally affected by the lack of regard for national sovereignty and the government's right to make choices for its people that is representative of its cultures, ideas, heritage, religion and political expectations.

Therefore, in the sensitive subject of abortion and euthanasia, we propose that the issue be left to each individual federal ruling sovereign body and that all nations can vote independantly on such issues, free of international influence and interference in the political process.

This means, that, no such proposals in the future regarding the issues of abortion and euthanasia will occupy the UN's time when more important issues need regard and consideration.

*BUMP*

No proposal may be submitted that restricts the rights of UN nations to submit proposals. Proposals may only be deemed out of order under Game Moderator precedent.

This proposal would prevent abortion-related and euthanasia-related proposals from being submitted and would impose the duty of deleting them on the Game Moderators. Therefore, I make a point of order that it violates Game Mechanics as defined under the rules and precedents of the United Nations.

Whereas individuals have the right to choice and the right to social justice

Yes .. I think that is about right ... So far ...

Whereas nations have the right to freedom in their proceedings

( Sound of me flicking through hard copy of past U.N. resolutions )

Whereas every nation is different in its policies, culture and heritage

Yes ...

Wherein this, we of Dor Cirion propose that the following be considered and passed as a resolution and put into practice.

As you would anyway by sticking in the proposal in the first place.

In a probably unrelated note, to any one writing a proposal, it is not requisite to "get your name in the history books" by sticking it into your proposal, when a proposal becomes a resolution on the books, the name of who stuck it in is there for-ever more.

All nations in the UN are equally affected by the lack of regard for national sovereignty and the government's right to make choices for its people that is representative of its cultures, ideas, heritage, religion and political expectations.

Uh ... " d'uh ! " . Wake up call : You are a U.N. member, you willing give up the possibility of controlling such things. It depends on if they are brought up for voting or not. And even then the vote might swing against and shoot the proposal down. Also, you can scoot.

In other words, if you don't like the club, then kindly give up membership.

Therefore, in the sensitive subject of abortion and euthanasia, we propose that the issue be left to each individual federal ruling sovereign body and that all nations can vote independantly on such issues, free of international influence and interference in the political process.

Repeal Alert.

Euthanasia already decided on.

This means, that, no such proposals in the future regarding the issues of abortion and euthanasia will occupy the UN's time when more important issues need regard and consideration.

Game Mechanics Alert.

Proposes to limit the scope of issues which U.N. may vote upon / scope of proposals that may be stuck up for voting by delegate + later open floor body.

Conclusion :

{ FAIIL }

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

In other words, if you don't like the club, then kindly give up membership.


The debate about what the club is for is totally legitimate. The role of the UN is not to create 'the same laws all over the world' but to limit national legislation as not to violate the basic rights of the nations inhabitants.

If the club is going somewhere where it's not ment to go, it's totally fair that member states debate this. Telling them to give up membership when something comes along that we don't like is denying us our right to debate the purpose of the UN.
Even in decisions made in a democratic environment, all of us should remember that even in a democracy, the majority is not always right.
If 51% of the members want the other 49% to shut up, that proves the democracy is not helping us getting where we want to be: democracy is the best we have, but it's not heaven.

The debate about what the club is for is totally legitimate. The role of the UN is not to create 'the same laws all over the world' but to limit national legislation as not to violate the basic rights of the nations inhabitants.

Yet, oddly enough, it does create the same law all over the world in member nations. Yes it does limit national legislation so as not to violate basic rights of citizens of a member nation, but you seem to be missing the fact of how it does this.

If the club is going somewhere where it's not ment to go, it's totally fair that member states debate this. Telling them to give up membership when something comes along that we don't like is denying us our right to debate the purpose of the UN.

Well, actually, "where it's not meant to go" is usually defined by Moderators. And the rules. Yes, we've the right to say "Hey, don't do that". But we have no right to change anything in any way in such a fashion as proposed. Why ?

Game Mechanics.

Also, what I meant was, if you don't like how it works, because thats the way it is, and because of what it is cannot be changed, then leave off and just walk out so as not to be effected.

I admit maybe I did not use an accurate analogy and issue my apology.

Even in decisions made in a democratic environment, all of us should remember that even in a democracy, the majority is not always right.

Granted, especially when it wants Game Mechanics changes. :wink:

If 51% of the members want the other 49% to shut up, that proves the democracy is not helping us getting where we want to be: democracy is the best we have, but it's not heaven.

I know, believe it or not this is all old arguments ( I am going to have to write that guide post sooner then I think, sigh ... )

But my conclusion is :

1) Thats how it is.

2) The way the game works, and is programmed, we cannot change it.

3) And even if we ask, it will not be changed.

4) Maybe we should focus on writing better proposals, last I checked we were not telling 49 % to shut up, we were trying to tell 95 % how to do things better and to the rules for their own good as members in the long run.

Then again, maybe you suggest we should just ignore the facts of game mechanics and the common sense of the rules, Hmmm ?

* Hope I made my point clearer.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Yet, oddly enough, it does create the same law all over the world in member nations. Yes it does limit national legislation so as not to violate basic rights of citizens of a member nation, but you seem to be missing the fact of how it does this.

Exactly: and THAT's why all UN member should start THINKING a little bit more: Do we WANT all nations to eventually be the same?
I'm not defending his proposition, I agree that the game works how it works. That is given: yet, what I see in all these so called proposals is exactly what is happening in REAL LIFE: We are eventually trying to influence others with our idea's, trying to use any given means to impose our opinion onto others and make rules that MAKE those others follow our ideas. We hide behind democraty, thinking that if the majority agrees in the votes, we must be right.
UN members should not go in to such detailed legislation in their proposals. What unites UN memberstates is the recognition of basic rights, not of all details.
I'm not trying to change the game mechanics, I want to make UN members aware of the fact that this is leading to a centralised power interfering with detailed regulations and laws it had nothing to do with in the first place.

While we recognise merit in their proposal, we politely ask the delegate from Dor Cirion to have a read of the resolution "Rights and Duties..."

Kind regards.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

This field has already been plowed.

The objective I have with this is to make way for the Un to be more productive and to not be preoccupied with having to deal with issues that will have us at each other's throats time and time again. This would enable us to have some federal jurisdiction over our own domestic issues instead of having one universal ruling, which satisfies some andangers others. This is just the way I think though... I had tried to make people happy with a middle of the road abortion proposal, but it didn't work, so, this seemed better, since it would given each country the right to decide what is right for its people. Also, the reason for including euthanasia because it's already a daily issue so there is no reason for the UN to be ruling on it.

Liberabiteria proposes to go further...

To limit the powers of the UN so as we cannot limit the rights, abilities, and sovereignties of any nation in any way.

You may say: "Won't that make all resolutions void?"

To that we say: "Absolutely. We would want nothing less."

The country i call home to isn't called the UN, it is called Liberabiteria, and Liberabiterians will decide just how Liberabiteria is run, not members of other nations that have little or no interest in our small nation.

Maybe we should focus on writing better proposals, last I checked we were not telling 49 % to shut up, we were trying to tell 95 % how to do things better and to the rules for their own good as members in the long run.

Err, actually, funny story about that. See, I've been . . well . . kind of doing . . both. Sort of a "Shut up, do this" approach to policymaking. Kind of hurts that whole lead by example thing.

Liberabiteria proposes to go further...

To limit the powers of the UN so as we cannot limit the rights, abilities, and sovereignties of any nation in any way.

You may say: "Won't that make all resolutions void?"

To that we say: "Absolutely. We would want nothing less."

The country i call home to isn't called the UN, it is called Liberabiteria, and Liberabiterians will decide just how Liberabiteria is run, not members of other nations that have little or no interest in our small nation.

If that's the case, allow me to show you to the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Ah, but the purpose of being part of the UN isn't to impose your own cultural ideas on them about domestic issues but to make the world a better place overall. Focusing on the elimination of WMD, progressing man's right to a fair trial and punishing those who commite crimes and bringing them to justice...etc... That is what the resolutions shouls focus on. Why do you think national issues are called 'domestic'? Because they are to stay at home....