NationStates Jolt Archive

Why in the UN is there no chance of a veto over an issue. For example, the latest topic concerns Nuclear weapons, trying to enforce a total ban. While this may seem the right thing in a perfect world, it is impractical, I would agree to a limit over weapons, but I cannot agree to a total ban. This is for one simple reason: Many nations are not in the UN, and hence, if the ban is passed, they will have free reign over nuclear weapons, while us in the UN have none. Should it come to a war between a UN member and a free-country, who would win?? Easy, the non-UN country.

Were every nation forced to ban them then I would agree totally, but while rogue nations continue to build these WMDs, then I have a duty to protect my people in any way I can, and if it came down to it I would be prepared to use WMDs myself, only in self-defence.

But while disagreeing with a ban on nuclear weapons, I also would like to remain part of the UN, I find it, for the most part, a sensible, rational system of assisting member nations. However, should the ban on nuclear weapons be on its way to being passed I will be forced to resign my membership to the UN. This is something I do not want to do, and could be something that could be avoided simply with the use of a veto system, much like that of the real UN. A system of vetos, I feel, could be used to keep many more nations within the UN, I know of many nations who have resigned following their disagreements over UN legislation, all nations who would have been willing to remain in the presence of a system of veto.

Ultimately it is up to the UN to change, if it does not then I see many more nations leaving, rather than joining. I do not wish to leave the UN, but if it comes down to it then I will for the sake of my country.

If you don't want this resolution to pass then I suggest campaigning against it.

You can start by posting in this thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150804

Good luck and welcome to The UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

To join the UN or not. It has its pros as well as it's negative parts. The other nations shouldn't be affected if not in the UN, and all in the UN should. I really think this is a wierd thred.

A universal veto system would render the UN pointless - every nation that didn't like a proposal would automatically veto it, and there'd be no purpose in having proposals at all.

Also, this is game mechanics.

A universal veto system would render the UN pointless - every nation that didn't like a proposal would automatically veto it, and there'd be no purpose in having proposals at all.

Agreed.

The reason there are not vetoes in the NS UN is simply because of what Rehochipe has said. People would veto everything, and then, instead of bitching about the fact that most resolutions pass, they'd bitch that people keep veteoing them.

Why in the UN is there no chance of a veto over an issue.

There is currently in the UN an undemocratic veto system that the membership of the UN does not get any say in - the mods and admins.

They delete any proposals they dislike, on the basis of their political objections, then they claim it is for reasons of "game mechanics." At the same time, flagrant violations of clear game rules are passed that fit with the majority of the mods' political opinions.

The unelected Central Soviet of the NS UN - the mods. They are the de facto Bolshevik Party of the UN.

As for people imagining ridiculous scenarios of one-nation vetoes, this is a straw man. No one suggests that one member nation alone should be able to veto. We could easily have an additional voting option, veto, and if some agreed upon minimum number of nations chose it, they could veto a motion. For example. There are countless types of veto that could be exercised, more democratically than the current Mod/Admin arbitrary veto "system."

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

[quote="America the AmericanThere is currently in the UN an undemocratic veto system that the membership of the UN does not get any say in - the mods and admins.

They delete any proposals they dislike, on the basis of their political objections, then they claim it is for reasons of "game mechanics." At the same time, flagrant violations of clear game rules are passed that fit with the majority of the mods' political opinions.
[/quote]

Mr. Held, I respectfully ask you to quit bitching about your proposal that got deleted. Had you read the rules before submitting the proposal, or posting a draft here on the forum, you would have know that a proposal calling for the repeal of every single UN resolution ever passed would be considered a blatent violation of the rules, and as such would be deleted.

There is no conspiracy of the Mods they are just doing their best to enforce the rules, and until [violet] finishes recoding the game repeals are against the rules.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Why in the UN is there no chance of a veto over an issue.

There is currently in the UN an undemocratic veto system that the membership of the UN does not get any say in - the mods and admins.

There is currently in the UN an undemocratic veto system that the membership of the UN does not get any say in - the mods and admins.

Mr. Held, I respectfully ask you to quit bitching about your proposal that got deleted. Had you read the rules before submitting the proposal, or posting a draft here on the forum, you would have know that a proposal calling for the repeal of every single UN resolution ever passed would be considered a blatent violation of the rules, and as such would be deleted.

Mr. Flibble, I respectfully ask you to shut your bleeding pie hole about things you obviously know nothing about. I did not submit any such resolution, nor would I submit a resolution to repeal "repeal every single UN resolution ever passed." I am describing an observable pattern of behavior on the part of the mods. I do not subimt resolutions that are against the rules, whether I agree with the rules or not. I will, however, retain my right to point out discrepancies and problems with the rules, as with the content of UN proposals.

To everyone else, I beg your apology for my harsh words, but one gets sick of constantly being derided for "bitching" and "whining" when one is merely raising legitimate political issues - especially when it is actually for being in the political minority in a game that is ostensibly about political role playing in which a diversity of views is possible.

I also beg your apology for the accidental reposts of mine on this thread.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

I very much doubt a veto system would be even considered.
If a proposal is accepted, people vote for. If not, they vote against. The majority vote wins. If your opinions are in the minority, then you're always going to be overruled. If you don't like this fact, then you are free to leave the UN. It's not like membership is compulsary.

I very much doubt a veto system would be even considered.
If a proposal is accepted, people vote for. If not, they vote against. The majority vote wins. If your opinions are in the minority, then you're always going to be overruled. If you don't like this fact, then you are free to leave the UN. It's not like membership is compulsary.

Of course a new veto system would not even be considered.

As I wrote above, there already exists a veto system - the mods veto whatever they dislike personally with the rules and game mechanics as excuses. Thus, some bills which repeal all or part of previous bills are removed as "repeals," while others, which the mods prefer politically, are not removed.

If your opinions are in the minority, and you don't like being trampled on, you are also free to rally others who have quit in disgust or refused to join, and get them to join en masse, so as to change the political makeup of the UN enough to create a majority in favor of a non-meddling UN that respects national sovereignty.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

As I wrote above, there already exists a veto system - the mods veto whatever they dislike personally with the rules and game mechanics as excuses. Thus, some bills which repeal all or part of previous bills are removed as "repeals," while others, which the mods prefer politically, are not removed.

Good to see you repeating the same tiresome, disproven arguement. Your 'section that is repealed' is subject to two later clauses which place international law above national law, give all UN nations an obligation to follow international law and generally mean you're using the 'accent' fallacy.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States: Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:
Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
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.

This is the section you like quoting, because it implies that national law is superior to international law within this resolution. But wait, what's this further down?

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.

Ah, so UN law is superior to national law after all, and there's no conflict. Odd that you skipped that part.

Good to see you repeating the same tiresome, disproven arguement. Your 'section that is repealed' is subject to two later clauses which place international law above national law, give all UN nations an obligation to follow international law...

Ah, so UN law is superior to national law after all, and there's no conflict. Odd that you skipped that part.

Actually, you are the one "repeating the same tiresome, disproven arguement" - that international law supercedes national sovereignty despite the obvious ramifications of Section I.

Actually, both are part of the resolution, and neither is "superior" to the other. You just like to, as usual for mods, try to use any flimsy excuse to trample national sovereignty because you are on an ego-driven power trip.

Yes, UN nations have obligations to abide by valid international law.

And international law has an obligation to respect national sovereignty, as laid out in Section I.

Both are equally true. You do not get to pick and choose which you like. Both must be followed. Like most mods, you enforce your view that international law is "superior," which is illegal and inconsistent both with national sovereignty and international law.

Any international law which fails to meet the requirements of Section I is not valid international law.

Articles 10 and 11 do not "delete" articles 1 through 3 of Section I. Articles 10 and 11 elaborate that nations are required to uphold international law, which itself is subject to Section I, Articles 1 through 3.

Article 10 outlines that nations are bound to carry out their treaties. Section I explains that such treaties cannot violate national sovereignty, but must pertain to international matters.

Article 11 relates to the interactions among nations, pertaining specifically to how each member nation should "conduct its relations with other NationStates," not domestic matters internal to the nation, which is covered in Section I.

This resolution clearly outlines things which both member nations and the UN must adhere to. You only want to enforce the limits placed on individual member nations, but not the UN.

It's all or nothing - if you don't enforce the limits placed on international law, your rulings are illegitimate tyranny. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Articles 2 and 3 contain the phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law". As far as I can interpret it, that means that all the articles say is natiopns have jurisdiction over local issues except where UN resolutions rule on those issues.

Article 1 mentions a government's "legal powers" without defining them. I would therefore think that the implied definition of "legal powers" is as defined by international law - i.e. anything which UN resolutions do not say that a government cannot do.

So really, these articles do nothing to keep UN resolutions away from national sovereignty.

Also, would that resolution have been allowed to pass if it actually had the ability to dictate the content of future resolutions? Generally the mods delete proposals which actually restrict what is possible in future resolutions.

Articles 2 and 3 contain the phrase "subject to the immunities recognized by international law". As far as I can interpret it, that means that all the articles say is natiopns have jurisdiction over local issues except where UN resolutions rule on those issues.

Clarly, your interpretation would render Articles 2 and 3 entirely meaningless, which is clearly not their intent. They exist to provide a safeguard of national sovereigny within international law. Our interprestation of "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is that the protection of national sovereignty ends where international law begins - if you have a national law that says you must invade other nations, for example, this clearly violates the rights of other nations and intenrational law. Also, vice versa, "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" means that domestic issues are recognized to be immune from international rulings where such domestic issues clearly have nothing to do with international issues.

Our interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 thus remains that nations have jurisdiction over purely domestic, local, internal issues, regardless of UN rulings. UN rulings pertain to the relations between UN nations and issues that are larger than individual nations.

Also, would that resolution have been allowed to pass if it actually had the ability to dictate the content of future resolutions?

Most definitely. The UN rules state quite clearly that every resolution which is passed dictates the content of future resolutions, in that no resolution may repeal previous resolutions, in whole or in part.

Therefore, to the extent that any new resolution conflicts with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States, it is illegitimate because it repeals that portion of a previous UN resolution.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Copy / paste from the other thread where you made identical claims.

Actually, it does not "destroy my argument," it is obviously irrelevant to our nation's argument.

We are not arguing that nations are not bound to uphold valid international treaties as mandated by Article 10, nor are we arguing that any nation should "conduct its relations with other NationStates" in a way that is not "in accordance with international law" as mandated by Article 11.

We are arguing that anything inconsistent with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States is clearly in violation of international law, and cannot be enforced by the UN.

Which is wrong, since if you try reading the damn resolution in full rather than taking it apart and reading it as two halves you would realise that it does THIS:

Article 1 Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article one states that ANY OTHER NATIONSTATE [singular] may not interfere in the running of your nation. But the UN is an international body, it isn't another nationstate, so the protections in section 1 don't apply to UN law, nor to international law. They are to protect you from direct interference in your domestic affairs by other nationstates acting apart from the UN or other international bodies.

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.

Articles 10 and 11 states that international law INCLUDING UN LAW supercedes any and all national law. There is no contraction whatsoever; any law the UN makes is superior to and must be enforced above national law. Article ten is very specific on that exact point.

Do you really think a UN proposal that had such a blatant effect on game mechanics as you claim this one does would have even been allowed in the first place?

Also, would that resolution have been allowed to pass if it actually had the ability to dictate the content of future resolutions?

Most definitely. The UN rules state quite clearly that every resolution which is passed dictates the content of future resolutions, in that no resolution may repeal previous resolutions, in whole or in part.

Therefore, to the extent that any new resolution conflicts with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States, it is illegitimate because it repeals that portion of a previous UN resolution.

But that is the only way that UN resolutions are allowed to dictate the content of future resolutions. See:

Do you really think a UN proposal that had such a blatant effect on game mechanics as you claim this one does would have even been allowed in the first place?

Copy / paste from the other thread where you made identical claims.

That was in a thread where we replied to your same tired, old claim that "UN rule is supreme" and that essentially UN member nations have no national sovereignty, simply the ability to govern whatever little areas of policy the UN doesn't decide to interfere with.

Which is wrong, since if you try reading the damn resolution in full rather than taking it apart and reading it as two halves you would realise that it does THIS:

Article 1 Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

You're just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself, and insulting us on the false grounds that we haven't read the resolution, does nothing to prove your argument.

Quite clearly, anyone who can read can see that Articles 10 and 11 only relate to interactions among nations, not the domestic affairs of any individual nation. Quibbling about who does the interfering does not change the fact that Section I prevents such interference in the first place, and Section I invalidates any meddling by other nations in your nation's internal affairs. If no single nation can interfere with the domestic affairs of other nations, it does not follow that multiple nations can legally gang up on other nations, as you assert.

Do you really think a UN proposal that had such a blatant effect on game mechanics as you claim this one does would have even been allowed in the first place?

Hah. The voice of the angry tyrant. Yes, even the mighty mods, who think themselves gods, do make mistakes. They are only human, and did in fact miss deleting this proposal before it passed, despite the fact that it interferes with "game mechanics" (by the way, for anyone reading this thread unclear on what is meant by this, the common phrase "game mechanics" is Orwellian mod double-speak for "our political designs for the UN" - any time you see mods say this phrase you can replace it in this way for a clearer understanding of what is being said).

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Also, would that resolution have been allowed to pass if it actually had the ability to dictate the content of future resolutions?

Most definitely. The UN rules state quite clearly that every resolution which is passed dictates the content of future resolutions, in that no resolution may repeal previous resolutions, in whole or in part.

Therefore, to the extent that any new resolution conflicts with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States, it is illegitimate because it repeals that portion of a previous UN resolution.

But that is the only way that UN resolutions are allowed to dictate the content of future resolutions.

Correct. And that is the only way we are suggesting Rights and Duties interferes with all subsequent legislation. However, this is a significant safeguard of national sovereignty. Since Rights and Duties asserts that no nation may interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation, this puts quite a limit on what sorts of meddling the UN may legally pass from that point on.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Also, would that resolution have been allowed to pass if it actually had the ability to dictate the content of future resolutions?

Most definitely. The UN rules state quite clearly that every resolution which is passed dictates the content of future resolutions, in that no resolution may repeal previous resolutions, in whole or in part.

Therefore, to the extent that any new resolution conflicts with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States, it is illegitimate because it repeals that portion of a previous UN resolution.

But that is the only way that UN resolutions are allowed to dictate the content of future resolutions.

Correct. And that is the only way we are suggesting Rights and Duties interferes with all subsequent legislation. However, this is a significant safeguard of national sovereignty.
Since Rights and Duties asserts that no nation may interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation, this puts quite a limit on what sorts of meddling the UN may legally pass from that point on.



Correct. No nation may interfere. The UN is not a nation, therefore it is exempt. Thankyou for proving this point for me.

subject to the immunities of international law

This clearly shows that international law is superior to any national law.
Your argument is flawed, tired out, debated out and duly nullified.

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.

I made it nice and clear for you.

Correct. No nation may interfere. The UN is not a nation, therefore it is exempt. Thankyou for proving this point for me.
I "proved" no such "point." Your argument, that since the UN is not a nation it is exempt from the sovereignty protections written into Rights and Duties, also means that any individual may interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign nation. After all, an individual is not a nation. Your argument is obviously ridiculous.

The fact that Section I clearly limits the ability of nations to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations does not mean it gives free reign to the UN, multinational corporations, individuals, bowling leagues, terrorist organizations, and knitting circles to interfere with your nation's domestic affairs.

Rights and Duties is UN legislation, duly passed, and protects the sovereignty of nations in respect to their domestic affairs. As UN law, the UN is bound to respect it and may not repeal it.

subject to the immunities of international lawThis clearly shows that international law is superior to any national law.
This "clearly shows" nothing of the sort. It shows that domestic policy is immune from international law. Your argument is flawed, tired out, debated out and duly nullified.

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.
I made it nice and clear for you. I'll make it doubly clear for you, since no amount of repetition seems to be too much for you:
Article 11 says nothing about the domestic affairs of any nation.

The "sovereignty of each UN Member State" clearly "is subject" only "to the supremacy of international law" in that it is obliged to "conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law."

Got it now?

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

"and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law" is a sweeping statement.

'With the principle' implies that this is a separate principle and "that the sovereignty of each UN member is subject to the supremacy of international law" clearly demonstates that UN law supersedes national sovereignty - in all areas.

"and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law" is a sweeping statement.

'With the principle' implies that this is a separate principle and "that the sovereignty of each UN member is subject to the supremacy of international law" clearly demonstates that UN law supersedes national sovereignty - in all areas.

Correct. It is a sweeping statement of principle, not a mandate of any specific action by the UN or nations.

Obviously, where there is a legitimate conflict of national sovereignty and valid international law, international law is supreme.

An example of a legitimate conflict betwen national sovereignty and valid international law would be if a nation chose to "exercise its sovereignty" by going to war with another UN member nation. Certainly, an aspect of national sovereignty is the construction and use of armed forces. The limit international law places on this is that no nation may send their armed forces into the territory of another nation uninvited by the legitimate government. In this context, the "principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law" would be relevant.

The provisions of Article I outline what is not a conflict between national sovereignty and valid international law. Domestic policies are clearly not grounds for such a conflict.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Article I refers to individual NationStates. Not international bodies, i.e. the UN.

Are you trying for the forum title 'Master of Sophistry' or something, A the A?

If no single nation can interfere with the domestic affairs of other nations, it does not follow that multiple nations can legally gang up on other nations, as you assert.

False. Article 10 states utterly unequivocably that all sources of international law are superior to domestic law. Your ability to read half the resolution at a time is astounding.

Hah. The voice of the angry tyrant. Yes, even the mighty mods, who think themselves gods, do make mistakes. They are only human, and did in fact miss deleting this proposal before it passed, despite the fact that it interferes with "game mechanics" (by the way, for anyone reading this thread unclear on what is meant by this, the common phrase "game mechanics" is Orwellian mod double-speak for "our political designs for the UN" - any time you see mods say this phrase you can replace it in this way for a clearer understanding of what is being said).

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Describe these plans citing evidence for them and who would gain from whatever these mysterious 'plans' are [explaining in detail why we even care what the UN voting system, a minor game concept at very best, does] or shut up about them. Enodia voted for it, moron.

And hold on, you're talking about game mechanics concepts and tagging the thread as IC anyway? That's ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh.

Correct. And that is the only way we are suggesting Rights and Duties interferes with all subsequent legislation. However, this is a significant safeguard of national sovereignty. Since Rights and Duties asserts that no nation may interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation, this puts quite a limit on what sorts of meddling the UN may legally pass from that point on.

You are, put frankly, hilarious. Let me read your argument back to you point by point.

[1] You attempt to 'prove' that 'The Rights and Duties of UN States' contains an illegal sovereignty-protecting clause*. [and also would illegally repeal several other prior resolutions with that clause]

[2]You then claim that this interpretation of yours somehow overrides the opinions of the moderators themselves on the subject.

[3]You then use an illegal consequence of a resolution to try to 'prove' another resolution is illegal.

Don't you see the problem here? If Rights and Duties contains the clause you claim it does it is illegal and therefore can have no effects on anything!

I "proved" no such "point." Your argument, that since the UN is not a nation it is exempt from the sovereignty protections written into Rights and Duties, also means that any individual may interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign nation. After all, an individual is not a nation. Your argument is obviously ridiculous.

Textbook Strawman. The actions of individual citizens are a matter of criminal, not international law. And if an individual can threaten your nation's sovereignty you're a rather shitty nation.

The fact that Section I clearly limits the ability of nations to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations does not mean it gives free reign to the UN, multinational corporations, individuals, bowling leagues, terrorist organizations, and knitting circles to interfere with your nation's domestic affairs.

Outright lie. Rights and duties only protects you from the actions of 'Any Nationstate.' Unless you're dumb enough to think 'any' and 'all' are synonyms.

Also a false dilemma, that either the UN legislates about something or there is no law regarding at at all. Don't you have local laws to protect you against terrorists and old ladies?

This "clearly shows" nothing of the sort. It shows that domestic policy is immune from international law. Your argument is flawed, tired out, debated out and duly nullified.

More lies. It's amazing how you pick apart the resolution and rebut by section, so let me remind you AGAIN:

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.

Get that? YOU MAY NOT INVOKE PROVISIONS IN YOUR LAWS AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE PERFORM THIS DUTY. Need me to spell it out on a chalkboard?

I made it nice and clear for you. I'll make it doubly clear for you, since no amount of repetition seems to be too much for you:
Article 11 says nothing about the domestic affairs of any nation.

Perhaps you should try learning to read entire sentences. That does make using the accent fallacy harder, though.

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.

Could it POSSIBLY be any clearer than that that you're wrong?

The "sovereignty of each UN Member State" clearly "is subject" only "to the supremacy of international law" in that it is obliged to "conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law."

Pissy semantics. Didn't you just claim 'other Nationstates' included the UN itself over Section 1?

The provisions of Article I outline what is not a conflict between national sovereignty and valid international law. Domestic policies are clearly not grounds for such a conflict.

Same tiresome lie. Section 1 is clearly subject to Section 3, or the resolution is illegal and thus your entire argument is moot. Pick one.

* 'Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.' [Enodia here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286)]