NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support this resolution so that it can reach the UN floor



Protection of the Empire
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Itinerate Tree Dweller

Description: Many UN resolutions are aimed at increasing democracy. This is fine and well for those nations who have a working democratic system in place, but for other nations they do not work. This resolution is aimed at protecting NON-democratic nations from outside PRO-democratic propaganda and influences.

1. No UN nation may actively attempt to coerce another nation into forming a democracy.

2. UN nations who are non-democratic are permitted to continue their method of self government.

3. Leaders of said non-democratic nations shall be given full recognition as heads of state by pro-democratic UN nations, even if such nations would wish to do otherwise.

4. Per the laws of individual nations, heirs to power and rule shall be recognized as such.

5. No UN nation shall be permitted to disrupt the political system of any UN nation UNLESS they (the two nations) have a prior or pending relationship of hostility or otherwise.

The UN shall have the power to enforce this through proper legislation.

This doesn't sound that bad... from the outset. I might support this. I wonder if there isn't already some sort of protection of forms of government through previous resolutions. I'll have to do some research. If anything, I understand where you're coming from. There is a large group which is trying to make the whole of the UN democratic. I don't know where I stand on this, but I do know where you're coming from is legitimate.

Thank you for your show of support. I feel the UN has become a haven for monarchy and empire haters. They fail to see the enormous benefit of a centralized and absolute authority. I have nothing against democracies, but they seem have alot against empires.

There are a number of constitutional monarchies and grand duties in NationStates. But when you look at the civil / economic / political "ratings" you'll find they include some of the most liberal nations around.

The UN isn't opposed to government types, but it certain stands against government actions that restrict basic human rights.

My concern with your resolution / proposal is that it sounds like my nation would be forced to recognize illegal states.

Two come to mind and they are true blights for international stability:

Francos Spain
Great Bight

These two nations have "griefed" by ejecting and hostilly crashing various peaceful political unions. While these nations have not gone to war (they hide behind moderators ... I mean ignore cannons), they do harm the UN, in that they boycott this assembly (the forum) and create political havok by booting nations.

These two nations get away with actions that normal smaller regional delegates wouldn't get away with. By this I'm talking abou the fact that in a small region you can ban maybe one or two nations before the UN mods will remove your influence (as if by magic), but in the large easy feeder regions these cowards routinely ban hundreds of nations in a few days time.

No, there is no way you can try to protect any government by making it recognize governments against its choice.

10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity
(physically and culturally located in the North Pacific, politically alligned with the East Pacific)

Im not going to debate the issue regarding the situation in The North Pacific. Special consideration must be made for a feeder nation. And ultimately Bight was delegate because of his endorsements. He was wanted by people. So the issue is a matter of endorsements.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as a wholly undemocratic nation which is a UN member.

Citizen Rule Required

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.

Thus I'd argue your proposal is an effort to repeal this resolution.

Secondly, I'd argue this proposal covers old ground

Rights and Duties of UN States
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....
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.

Your proposal appears to seek to repeal article 10 and 11, and is simply repeating articles 1, 2 and 3. It implies (to me, based upon the preamble) that resolutions passed by the UN should not be enforced on non-democratic nations.

I don't see this proposal as being worthy of consideration.