NationStates Jolt Archive

In my short tenure as UN Delegate for the Americas Debate region, I have seen a vast number of proposals and passed resolutions that attempt to impose law on soverign nations. Many of these are pointless, wasteful, resolutions that dictate policies many members of the UN already adhere to. To those that do not, who are we as an organization to violate one's soverignty in such a fashion?

Therefore the Kingdom of Tibetania, representing the Americas Debate region, have proposed the Territorial Soverignty Act.

I encourage all UN delegates to view the proposal (page 14 on the proposal list)

The UN is a powerful body. But we would violate the very principles we we founded on if we were to impose laws on soverign nations. Let them decide if they will follow this body's reccomedations and if they chhose to not to, the independent regions can choose to act within the law against said nations.

UN DELEGATES! APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL! THE REGION YOU SAVE MAY BE YOURS!

Ohime! Che deprime! no rest for the weary (which I don't know in italian)!

Territorial Soverignty Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: Tibetania
Description: In my short tenure as UN Delegate for the Americas Debate region, I have seen a vast number of proposals and passed resolutions that attempt to impose law on soverign nations. Many of these are pointless, wasteful, resolutions that dictate policies many members of the UN already adhere to. To those that do not, who are we as an organization to violate one's soverignty in such a fashion?

The region of America's Debate, represented by the Kingdom of Tibetania:

Observing territorial soverignty of all peacetime nations;

Reminding all UN nations to do so;

Reminding that independant nations can react, within the law, to other nation's actions,

Proposes that a resolution be passed declaring that:

1. All said resolutions passed by this body, with the exception of declarations of economic agreements or military action, are not legally binding in nature,

2. That they are merely statements by this body of their determination for said actions,

3. That all resolutions that in essecnce impose such actions/laws be hereby rescinded.

4. That this body can not and will not impose laws on soverign nations, as it contadicts the very foundations upon which this organization was founded.



Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Aug 9 2004

Epopolis rejects this proposal on two grounds:
First, it is too vague, it's a pleasant idea, but not ready to become law.
Second, somewhere in the UN rules it clearly states (if someone could please post the exact text here, I'm sure of the rules existance though), that all NS UN resolutions are legally binding, unlike the real UN, and you must follow them all. If you don't like them, leave. Or find a loophole, for the Abortion Act, which I strongly disaggreed with, being a theocracy my nation made Abortion a legal right, but made it illegal in our religion, which all citizens must follow. Just a thought. Thank you.

How is it changing game mechanics?

All it is saying is that the resolutions we pass are NOT LEGALLY BINDING unless it is a declaration of war or economic sanctions

It's not a game mechanics issue, it's an issue with Max Barry's rules, see the UN FAQ.

Quote:
"So I'm a UN member. Now what?
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)"

Thank you Epopolis for using rational thought to help up a newb like myself, instead of posting one-liners.

Tibetania will let the resolution die.

I would say that they are legally binding because:
1) You get sent a telegram saying (from memory, but effectivly) that "laws have been inacted in *your nation* to bring *your nation* in compliance with the *name of resolution just passed* resolution. It doesn't give you a choice in the matter.
2) Your national stats are changed based off of the resolution.

But also, technicly you can violate it with your choice on issues. The game doesn't account for this.

This is effecting game mechanics, so I don't think this resolution is legal.

But also, technicly you can violate it with your choice on issues. The game doesn't account for this.

Apparently it does. If a resolution passes that makes a choice for an issue for you, your nation does not receive that issue again (for example, you won't receive the issue regarding euthanasia after the U.N. Resolution passed legalizing euthanasia).

The issue of soveriegnty is a tired debate. The United Nations exists to violate soveriegnty, in a sense, but only in order to improve the quality of life for all the world's citizens. Reducing resolutions to nothing more than non-binding recommendations would be the equivilant of changing these halls to an outrageously expensive tea party. Member nations join the UN with the understanding that, if the UN decrees such, they're going to lose a chunk of control over their nation. That's the way it has been; that's the way it will always be.

The issue of soveriegnty is a tired debate. The United Nations exists to violate soveriegnty, in a sense, but only in order to improve the quality of life for all the world's citizens. Reducing resolutions to nothing more than non-binding recommendations would be the equivilant of changing these halls to an outrageously expensive tea party. Member nations join the UN with the understanding that, if the UN decrees such, they're going to lose a chunk of control over their nation. That's the way it has been; that's the way it will always be.
To my esteemed colleague from the great state of Sophista,

Perhaps it has been discussed at length before, but my government feels that the issue of national sovereignty is one that should continue to be debated here at the UN.

While we agree that joining the UN involves an implicit agreement to share some national sovereignty with the supranational body for the greater good, we do not agree that membership implies a wholesale handover of our ability to govern ourselves as we wish. In fact, it is a pillar of the foreign policy of my nation and the NSSRC region [/shameless plug] that the trend towards progressivly more intrusive UN resolutions should be ended. We believe that past UN resolutions have unduly intruded upon our sovereign rights and that every opportunity to reclaim individual sovereignty from the UN should be taken.

I look forward to discussing this issue further in this forum.

Respectfully submitted,

While we agree that joining the UN involves an implicit agreement to share some national sovereignty with the supranational body for the greater good, we do not agree that membership implies a wholesale handover of our ability to govern ourselves as we wish.

Then you disagree with how the game works. Maybe your suggestions would be more at home in technical because you can't change the game through the UN.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Then you disagree with how the game works. Maybe your suggestions would be more at home in technical because you can't change the game through the UN.

Not so. I simply disagree with many of the UN resolutions that have passed, though my government has implemented them as required by the UN charter (and game mechanics). My government's aim in the U.N. is simply to work to make sure that proposals that I believe intrude excessively on member nations' sovereignty are rewritten to be less intrusive. Failing that, we will work to defeat any resolution that comes to a vote which fails to sufficiently respect national sovereignty.

My government has heartily endorsed current proposals such as Habeas Corpus and Right of Appeal even though it could be argued that there proposals would intrude on national sovereignty. On the other hand, we led the successful opposition to the End Nuclear Proliferation Agreement as we felt that resolution would have drastically weakened member nations' ability to defend themselves from outside aggression.

We respectfully thank our colleague from The Black New World for giving us the opportunity to clarify our foreign policy goals.

Collegially,

I'm sorry I mistook you for the author of the proposal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I wholly agree with the concept of protecting national sovereignty.
The simple fact is, far too many proposals have been aimed to reduce our nations to states of a centralized government. There is no respect for the right to govern as we choose, or our religious beliefs (if we have any).

International law and policy is enacted to better the global society. In order for a proposition to infringe on national sovereignty, then the issue at hand must be of global importance, and be a threat to the global society.

Whether I allow a woman to obtain an abortion in my country has no bearing on the global society. Whether my country decides to tag individuals with tracking devices and monitor every time they take a dump has no bearing on global society. (Just watch, that will be next on the inane and stupendously stupid proposals list).

There are just SOME things that are not the business of the UN.

While we agree that joining the UN involves an implicit agreement to share some national sovereignty with the supranational body for the greater good, we do not agree that membership implies a wholesale handover of our ability to govern ourselves as we wish. In fact, it is a pillar of the foreign policy of my nation and the NSSRC region [/shameless plug] that the trend towards progressivly more intrusive UN resolutions should be ended. We believe that past UN resolutions have unduly intruded upon our sovereign rights and that every opportunity to reclaim individual sovereignty from the UN should be taken.

The Sophistan government shares your concerns over the intrusive nature of past UN resolutions. Luckily, we tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by those documents, or have found ways to succesfully circumvent their influence. Take the resolution legalizing prostitution, for example. The sex trade is legal in Sophista, but anyone who sells their body will find themselves suffering from the 100% tax placed on their service. Any prostitute who doesn't turn over all of her income to the state is arrested for tax evasion, effectively squashing the industry.

The solution to problems like this don't lie in arguing about soveriegnty, however. There is an immense emnity towards the breach of the right of a government to rule how it pleases within it's own borders, and many members have no qualms screaming about it every time a resolution requires any loss of power or change in policy. This isn't progress. Instead of talking about the general concept, it is more effective to discuss the issue as it pertains to invidiual proposals. Not all violations of soveriegnty are bad. If a nation has a law requiring all people under six feet in height to be whipped and flogged, the UN has a clear interest in putting an end to that practice. What is more important is finding proposals that are clearly stepping on toes, and taking action to either defeat the proposal, or water it down to make it less intrusive, as has been suggested by others in this forum.

If we're going to have this fight, we might as well make it practical.

To the ambassador of Sophista:

I would love to see your direction in dealing with national sovereignty to work. However, some extremists do not care to hear the arguments opposing an action and only their moral belief for or against a proposal. Therefore, we often find ourselves falling back on the pure argument of national sovereignty.

This is partly the reason that I will be revisiting the issue of universal ethics agreement, and hopefully give ourselves a stronger stance within the UN. At a minimum, I would like to see proposals involving ethical decisions to stay out of the UN.

I see that this issue has struck a chord with many of you. This is a very postive side effect of our proposal. I encourage all nations that are interested, especially the nations of Sophista, Crushinatoria, and Whited Fields, to telegram the UN Delegate to Tibetania, his Lordship of New Lhasa, Alexander Andronicus to assist him in his drafting of a new proposal that could tackle such issues. We wish to be apart of the UN, and to make it a great organization who's actions will benefit the world, and although each nation must cede a little bit of soverignty, we must not let that inch turn into a mile.

Let's work together on this issue!

Tibetanian Foreign Minister, Prince Marcus I

We wish to be apart of the UN, and to make it a great organization who's actions will benefit the world, and although each nation must cede a little bit of soverignty, we must not let that inch turn into a mile.
It's been defined already (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/54669/page=un), specifically with the intent of keeping game mechanics changes out of the concept. An excerpt:

Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:
Implemented: Tue Feb 24 2004
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

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.

Read the rest of it to clearly understand the definitons. It's all covered. It's all there.

Wow, thanks for that tidbit. The problem is that there are still crappy resolutions out there. I guess we will be left to vote nay on a res until it is deemed otherwise by our nation and region.

Thanks Again

Apparently it does. If a resolution passes that makes a choice for an issue for you, your nation does not receive that issue again (for example, you won't receive the issue regarding euthanasia after the U.N. Resolution passed legalizing euthanasia).

Not always, I've recieved the issues dealing with euthanasia, abortion, and prostitution after the passing of the UN resolutions regarding those subjects.

I've received the euthanasia issue near-constantly both with my current UN nation, Enn, and the nation I had in the UN when euthanasia passed, so I don't think that resolutions affect issues very much, if at all.

That said, there are many things that have been suggested as proposals that would work far better as issues.

The Council of Enn works with every passed UN resolution, fully implementing every law that we support, and exploiting loopholes in those we do not support.

My government has heartily endorsed current proposals such as Habeas Corpus...
Always good to know that you're appreciated.

I've received the euthanasia issue near-constantly both with my current UN nation, Enn, and the nation I had in the UN when euthanasia passed, so I don't think that resolutions affect issues very much, if at all.
OOC:In theory it does. Issues have the option to by-pass UN members.