NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, this is happening FAR too often. Out of the last 5 proposals, only 1 actually DID anything. They all use words like 'recommend' 'encourage' 'advise' and the like, in other words, Its basically a scared little nerd telling bullies 'Could you please not shove that small child in that locker, course, if you want to anyway, thats alright.'
Seriously it really ticks me off that proposals like this make it through when well written proposals that actually do things die in committy.

When was the last time the real UN adopted a proposal that actually did much of anything? Your style of resolution butts into everyone's business, violating national sovereignty. They also generally conflict with many nation's style of government.

When was the last time the real UN adopted a proposal that actually did much of anything? Your style of resolution butts into everyone's business, violating national sovereignty. They also generally conflict with many nation's style of government.
No, here's the difference, the UN passes resolutions that would have an effect, if they could enforce them. Also, just because we don't want to offend anyone, we PRETEND to pass resolutions for the good of the world, that makes NO sense. If we're going to do that for nearly every proposal why not just shut the UN down entirely?

The lack of strong wording exists for a reason. International problems aren't the kind of thing that can be solved in one fell stroke of grand legislation. First of all, the world operates in baby steps. Moving too fast accelerates any problems that might lie in the framework, which could be disastrous. Second, putting such a massive legal text together while at the same time appeasing everyone would be cost prohibitive. The time required would be far too long to keep various coalitions together.

Furthermore, using vague, encouraging language allows each nation to enact legislation to their own needs. We suggest and recommend people take action to fix a problem, they bring about the sort of laws that they feel solve the problem best based on their nation.

So, for now, deal with it. Unless you can design a better system for bringing about meaningful international change, it's best to use the current system.

Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Sophista: Back In Action

[QUOTE=Leetonia]No, here's the difference, the UN passes resolutions that would have an effect, if they could enforce them. [QUOTE]

Hey-here's a great idea! Why doesn't the UN just ban national sovereignty? Eh, eh? Because that's what you're proposing.

[QUOTE=Leetonia]If we're going to do that for nearly every proposal why not just shut the UN down entirely?[QUOTE]

Hmmm. This sounds exactly like something my country would support, being the evil SOBs that they are.

And if this makes you oh-so-upset, why don't you go play in a little corner by yourself? Then no one can oppose your attempts to destroy national sovereignty and the main point of this game-to run your own country whatever damn way you want to.

Horatio888
Grand Inquisitor

Furthermore, using vague, encouraging language allows each nation to enact legislation to their own needs. We suggest and recommend people take action to fix a problem, they bring about the sort of laws that they feel solve the problem best based on their nation.Or no laws at all. I am upset that I joined to late to be effected by any of the resolutions that actually had an effect. Some of the older players remember their stats actually changing when
a UN proposal passed, here I am, a month worth of proposals, and the only actual change I've noticed was from the issues. Everyone is constantly screaming 'national sovreignty' Well guess what people, you gave that up when you joined the UN. Don't like it? Leave.

Trust me on this one. I've been around long enough to endure my fair share of debates on the United Nations system. You don't get affected by proposals from the past because the server doesn't keep track of who joined when, nor does it retroactively apply everything to new members. That's a flaw in the system.

The national soveriegnty issue is also something people talk about far too much considering how black and white the issue is. The sovereignty issue hinges on whether or not a resolution deals with a problem that occurs on the international level, or wholly within a nation. The United Nations has no place handling legislation unless it deals with an international issue.

Let me explain. If a law that I pass has absolutely no affect whatsoever on your nation, it would be improper for the UN to step in and say something anyway. This gets a little tricky when you're dealing with civil rights, but for the most part, unless it affects you, shut up and go home. Gay people can marry in my country. That doesn't mean anything in your country. However, if I say factories can burn coal in giant pits and then dump the remaining waste into the ocean, it might irk my neighbors who have to deal with acid rain and poisonous seas. Because my actions are now international in nature, I've lost the soveriengty defense.

So no, I don't give up complete governing authority over my country just because I joined the UN. I give up governing authority on issues that affect the global community, and even then, only if the global community feels its necessary.

What Sophista said. Plus, I really only joined the UN to make the game more interesting.

No, here's the difference, the UN passes resolutions that would have an effect, if they could enforce them. Also, just because we don't want to offend anyone, we PRETEND to pass resolutions for the good of the world, that makes NO sense. If we're going to do that for nearly every proposal why not just shut the UN down entirely?

Leetonia,

You don't have a freak'n clue about what you are talking about. Trust us. You don't. As in zippo. Zero. Zlich. Null. None. Nada. The real United Nations is nothing like what you are talking about. Don't believe me, well check out the real UN's General Assembly resolutions at:

http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm

Don't think they use words like "Encourages"? Would you really like for me to count how many times in 2003 that the UN used that single word as the activating clause of a resolution? I'm sure that somebody has a script that can tell us.

Here is part of a typical real UN resolution:


1. Decides to designate 7 April 2004 as the International Day of Reflection
on the Genocide in Rwanda;

2. Encourages all Member States, organizations of the United Nations
system and other relevant international organizations, as well as civil society
organizations, to observe the International Day, including special observances and activities in memory of the victims of the genocide in Rwanda;

3. Encourages all Member States, organizations of the United Nations
system and other relevant international organizations to consider promoting
implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda; 3

4. Calls upon all States to act in accordance with the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide so as to ensure that there is no repetition of events of the kind that occurred in Rwanda in 1994.

78th plenary meeting
23 December 2003
_______________

4
A/57/775, annex, decision EX.CL/Dec.16 (II).



I've trimmed the preamble. It is more of the same. You'll notice that like my resolution, even the real UN makes use of citations. Without telling everybody what I do in real life, let's just say that I'm *very* familiar with *writing* and reading government documents. I will tell you that I did finish graduate school and work for a living. But I do find some of the on forum and many of the off forum *real* debates interesting. I've had to learn so much about so many topics, because truth be told, when you guys bring a resolution to vote, I go out and try to do some of my own research (I don't like making uninformed decisions).

The reason you are seeing prior resolutions that don't have all those long "words" is because frankly, most folks don't know jack about the United Nations or even American politics.

The "Whereas" styled resolutions are coming from people that are familiar with debate styled bills and resolutions. That is a standard format. The United Nations adopted a different format that has its basis in international law, not debate. The UN format goes back to 1945, which not only predates you, but *gasp* actually predates me as well. Actually the League of Nations may have used the same format, but I've kept my studying of the League to a minimium.
The third style you see are designed like international treaties. The Rights and Duties resolution is an example of this.

There is no "fourth" style of resolution here. The rest of what you see is free form.

Alright, this is happening FAR too often. Out of the last 5 proposals, only 1 actually DID anything.

Which one, and why does instant " doing " over-rule " thinking " in scales of importance ? I could go on, but my only analogy I could think of in relation to this involved fluffy pink bunny's, vegetable gardens, rifles and conflict resolution. So I'll leave off for now unless asked.

Seriously it really ticks me off that proposals like this make it through when well written proposals that actually do things die in committy.

Yes, because we all know the reason why the well written " Save The World From Opinion " X " " proposals fail is because they " do " something.

;)

And might I add, What Mikitivity said too.

And I only joined the U.N. to make IT more interesting. :D

Everyone is constantly screaming 'national sovreignty' Well guess what people, you gave that up when you joined the UN. Don't like it? Leave.

It's pointless to continue to debate this issue with you since you know jack about how the UN really works and operates. Joining the UN has never, EVER forefited any nation's right to sovereignty and home rule.

Though Mikitivity has provided you with the means to become educated on how international law works. I suggest you look into it.

Horatio888
Grand Inquisitor

With many topics, it's nigh-on impossible to write a proposal which mandates specific actions, without either leaving a bunch of inadequacies and loopholes, or creating a big mess by giving a diverse group of governments (probably more diverse even than the RLUN) a "one-size-fits-all" order. Increasingly when writing ideas for resolutions I find it suits my perfectionism better to come up with a general principle, then request that all nations apply it as best suits their individual situation.

Obviously, you can be clear and obligatory with something like "Governments may not execute minors", but there are many examples where this kind of brute force is messy, impractical, or just plain impossible.

Plus, if you appease the national sovereignty advocates (I personally don't agree with the "If it doesn't cross boundaries, it's not the NSUN's business", I take the same view as The Black New World; that the game was designed to have the UN be further-reaching than IRL - read the FAQ - and that UN business is whatever voting nations choose to make it) you might get more approvals for your proposal.

Plus, if you appease the national sovereignty advocates (I personally don't agree with the "If it doesn't cross boundaries, it's not the NSUN's business", I take the same view as The Black New World; that the game was designed to have the UN be further-reaching than IRL - read the FAQ - and that UN business is whatever voting nations choose to make it) you might get more approvals for your proposal.


The game wasn't originally designed with region crash (invading) in mind either, though it has evolved that way.

I think the national boundary issue is pretty subjective, but also a good rule. For players that *want* to tell others how to run domestic issues, they should *first* consider drafting an issue. *Then* if they think the problem really is wide scale and something that the UN should get into, they should *first* post a DRAFT proposal here and see if they are poking the proverbal hornets nest.

But you are right, nations are gonna hit that wall every single time. I think sometimes the cries for "Don't Tread on Me!" are valid, and other times they aren't ... as domstrated largely by what the resolution is saying. In english, I'll always vote for a well written (i.e. not in kindergarden language) resolution, really based on the fact that a human cared enough about something to put more than just a fire and forget approach into their problem. And yes, even careful resolutions will step on the hand that feeds them.

I am a major advocate of national sovereignty, since it is SUPPOSED to be guaranteed by the Rights and Duties of the UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/71843/page=UN_past_resolutions) passed by majority February 24, 2004.

I also understand the need for some resolutions to overstep the boundaries of national sovereignty for dealing with issues that affect us globally.
For this reason, my greatest concern is protecting national ethical development from the UN by finding a way to outline what we consider Universally Accepted Ethics, and leave the definition of these ethics to local government. Additionally, I want to see ethical based resolutions that seek to define, ban, or otherwise shape the moral development of a country OUT of the UN.

There is a middle ground to each of these issues.
But some here have begun to see the UN as a central government.
That is not was the UN was ever intended to be.

But some here have begun to see the UN as a central government. That is not was the UN was ever intended to be.

Any World Federalist would disagree. Given the propensity for governments to ignore the greater, global good in favor of their own best interest, there needs to be a third-party organization with some authority to dictate policy. The RLUN doesn't serve this purpose because of flaws in the Security Council. Since the NSUN doesn't have any kind of veto system, nor does it suffer from the constant compartmentalization of issues into UN sub-panels, it provides a much more realistic model.

Just a thought.