NationStates Jolt Archive

If this Resolution of the UN is passed, no nation will have the right to propose a resolution which restricts a nations' right to govern its people.

I haven't drafted a proposal yet, but I would like input to see who would support this.

The only thing is, any nation which doesn't like the views the UN is pushing onto it - liberal or otherwise - can always resign from the UN. It might be difficult to decide which resolutions are restricting and which aren't. Regardless of what I just said, I do feel that any nation with its own ideas should NOT have others forced onto it if it chooses not to.

OOC: I think it would conflict with game mechanics…

Not necessarily. I haven't written it up yet, but if i can write it just right, it would keep nations free to govern their people the way they want, ie: punishing citizens the way they see fit. but still be open to resolutions such as the UNSC or civil rights laws. its broad, but i think neccessary. and it would also keep nations in the UN to help contribute to world issues instead of alienating them

OOC: Well anything that restricts what people can and can't submit conflicts with game mechanics (with the exception that once proposals are passed you can't contradict it). In order for this to work it would have to change nothing about how the game works like 'rights and duties' did.

I always support issues that promote an individual's freedom over the group-entity's freedom. The group entity is not an individual and does not require protections.

The rights of GOVERNMENTs should NOT be protected. The rights of INDIVIDUALS who are GOVERNED, MUST be protected.

The future peoples of the jovian worlds will not support any resolution that promotes the rights of a government or governing group over that of the individual.

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

Exactly. The more laws you make, the more you restrict freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom from fear, religous freedom. I actually don't have to write a proposal, it was already done and passed. The death penalty ban resolution up for vote is illegal because it conflicts with the following resolution

Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN States Resolution states and I quote

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.

Whole Resolution

Rights and Duties of UN States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability Strength: Significant Proposed by: Frisbeeteria
Description: : UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates. 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. Section II: The Art of War: Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons. 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. Section III: The Role of the United Nations: Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State. 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.

Votes For: 15083

Votes Against: 3395



mods check this out and please comment

I'm curious; Why just liberal resolutions?
Sounds a bit "Liberals are the spawn of Satan!" to me.

If you don't want the UN to tell you how to run your country, resign.

Exactly. The more laws you make, the more you restrict freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom from fear, religous freedom. I actually don't have to write a proposal, it was already done and passed. The death penalty ban resolution up for vote is illegal because it conflicts with the following resolution

Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN States Resolution states and I quote

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.

Not this again...

Imagine you're playing a game of chess against me and you move your king, I respond that you cannot move your king to that square because if my queen could move like a knight your king would be in check and since moving your king into check is illegal that move would be illegal.

It's a false cause fallacy; even though the second part is correct, the first part cannot happen so it is completely irrelevant. You might as well ask what would happen if checkmate didn't end the game or a pawn could take every piece on the board. This is the same; protecting sovereignty in a resolution is illegal and repeals are equally illegal, so why should we allow this clause to be an illegal 'protection of sovereignty' clause and then still care about repeals?

Not that it actually is a protection of sovereignty clause, as reading it in context shows:

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 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.

UN law is superior to your own laws. The UN is also not another Nationstate, so Section I doesn't apply to it. [presumably it actually applies to other UN nations trying to force you to change national policy with embargos or similiar]

To quote a famous saying:

"Let my people go!"

Or was it "be"?

I forget......

If you don't want the UN to tell you how to run your country, resign.

Oh that's all fine and dandy for some. But what about those of us who WANT an international voice?

Not this again...

I was thinking exactly the same thing. :roll:

You know, I think I'll quote that reply you used just then in future....It does the job nicely.

Oh that's all fine and dandy for some. But what about those of us who WANT an international voice?

Those will have to accept that others also have them.

Oh that's all fine and dandy for some. But what about those of us who WANT an international voice?
The simple thing is to comply with the UN if you want to be have an international voice.

Oh that's all fine and dandy for some. But what about those of us who WANT an international voice?

You ask yourself what is more important to your country; sovereignty or The UN.

Giordano,
UN Representative,
The Black New World.

Oh that's all fine and dandy for some. But what about those of us who WANT an international voice?

*sigh* I'm really tired about those people who whine on like this. It's all to do with rights and corresponding responsibilities.

If you want the right to influence the international community, you'd better accept that the international community can influence you.