Pharglonia
21-06-2004, 19:20
UN Limitations Act -- Political Stability, Strong
SUPPORTING the idea that each member of the United Nations is both a member of the community of nations and, as is sometimes forgotten, a free and sovereign state;
CONSIDERING that the United Nations has passed seventy resolutions since its creation, including over sixty resolutions that control spending within member nations;
CONSIDERING that the constant roll of resolutions has had a dramatic and unreversed negative effect on the sovereignty of United Nations members;
CONSIDERING that too many laws requiring spending can be a huge financial burden on the smaller members of the United Nations;
CONSIDERING that the primary role of sovereign states is to protect their citizens;
REALIZING that member nations should be committed to supporting all previous resolutions if it is economically feasible and will not damage the integrity of their nation, and even in cases where a resolution is unfunded, it should still be supported;
Be it hereby resolved that members of the United Nations may restrict funding to previous UN resolutions if they deem such action necessary to restoring their political stability and national sovereignty.
Greetings. I am Doctor Phargle, the sovereign monarch of the Kingdom of Pharglonia. This is my resolution. A lot of people have asked me to start a thread in the UN forums to discuss it, so here it is.
Right now, it just requires delegate support. We have 38 delegates currently voting yes in less than one day -- a great well-spring of support! I'm hoping for more. Right now, I just want to prove that the resolution deserves a vote by the UN. Once it's up for a full vote, I will be prepared to defend the resolution on the merits.
A few people have said this resolution constitutes a repeal or amendment of previous resolutions. This is not the case. This resolution still explicitely requires nations to support all previous resolutions. Previous resolutions that require funding must still be backed -- the only difference is that funding can be restricted somewhat in the name of political stability. No resolution has specified how much funding must be applied, but with sixty to seventy resolutions on the books, it can be hard to find adequate money for all of them. The UN Limitations Act gives smaller nations like my own that flexibility!
I love my country, and I am also an eager member of the community of nations. Sometimes, being part of the UN, these two positions come into conflict with each other. If the UNLA is passed, I will get to be both. And if the UNLA is given a fair vote in the UN -- if enough delegates endorse it so that it goes to the floor -- it will prove to small nations like my own that the UN is a fair and open body that gives consideration to our unique needs.
One size doesn't fit all, ladies and gentlemen. Give us the flexibility to restore our political stability.
King Emmanuel Victor Phargle, PhD
OOC: Of course, this resolution changes no game mechanic. The text is purely roleplay. The in-game effect is only a strong boost to political stability. My argument that this would be the case is simple -- if we've had dozens of resolutions that increase political freedoms (as we have had), a single resolution calling for "the power to restrict funding" to those resolutions would constitute a step in the opposite direction. In other words, a boost to political stability. (To see how this works, if the UN had been dominated by tyranny and had passed dozens resolutions requiring oppressing your people, a single resolution that would boost freedom could be dressed up the same way I've done this one.) Thank you for your consideration!
SUPPORTING the idea that each member of the United Nations is both a member of the community of nations and, as is sometimes forgotten, a free and sovereign state;
CONSIDERING that the United Nations has passed seventy resolutions since its creation, including over sixty resolutions that control spending within member nations;
CONSIDERING that the constant roll of resolutions has had a dramatic and unreversed negative effect on the sovereignty of United Nations members;
CONSIDERING that too many laws requiring spending can be a huge financial burden on the smaller members of the United Nations;
CONSIDERING that the primary role of sovereign states is to protect their citizens;
REALIZING that member nations should be committed to supporting all previous resolutions if it is economically feasible and will not damage the integrity of their nation, and even in cases where a resolution is unfunded, it should still be supported;
Be it hereby resolved that members of the United Nations may restrict funding to previous UN resolutions if they deem such action necessary to restoring their political stability and national sovereignty.
Greetings. I am Doctor Phargle, the sovereign monarch of the Kingdom of Pharglonia. This is my resolution. A lot of people have asked me to start a thread in the UN forums to discuss it, so here it is.
Right now, it just requires delegate support. We have 38 delegates currently voting yes in less than one day -- a great well-spring of support! I'm hoping for more. Right now, I just want to prove that the resolution deserves a vote by the UN. Once it's up for a full vote, I will be prepared to defend the resolution on the merits.
A few people have said this resolution constitutes a repeal or amendment of previous resolutions. This is not the case. This resolution still explicitely requires nations to support all previous resolutions. Previous resolutions that require funding must still be backed -- the only difference is that funding can be restricted somewhat in the name of political stability. No resolution has specified how much funding must be applied, but with sixty to seventy resolutions on the books, it can be hard to find adequate money for all of them. The UN Limitations Act gives smaller nations like my own that flexibility!
I love my country, and I am also an eager member of the community of nations. Sometimes, being part of the UN, these two positions come into conflict with each other. If the UNLA is passed, I will get to be both. And if the UNLA is given a fair vote in the UN -- if enough delegates endorse it so that it goes to the floor -- it will prove to small nations like my own that the UN is a fair and open body that gives consideration to our unique needs.
One size doesn't fit all, ladies and gentlemen. Give us the flexibility to restore our political stability.
King Emmanuel Victor Phargle, PhD
OOC: Of course, this resolution changes no game mechanic. The text is purely roleplay. The in-game effect is only a strong boost to political stability. My argument that this would be the case is simple -- if we've had dozens of resolutions that increase political freedoms (as we have had), a single resolution calling for "the power to restrict funding" to those resolutions would constitute a step in the opposite direction. In other words, a boost to political stability. (To see how this works, if the UN had been dominated by tyranny and had passed dozens resolutions requiring oppressing your people, a single resolution that would boost freedom could be dressed up the same way I've done this one.) Thank you for your consideration!