NationStates Jolt Archive

Under what "right" does the UN have to impose ANYTHING on any nation's
territory or populace?

I understand that by accepting membership in the UN, a nation accepts the
rules decided by the UN as LAW on their soil.

But does this very condition of admittance essentially replace a nation's
sovereignty with the will of the UN..?

Does this not NEGATE the very meaning of "a nation"..?

My people refuse to give up our nationality for the dictatorship of the UN,
ONLY because it's such an either/or decision.

ONLY if the UN made resolutions that respected the right of each nation to
choose ONLY those UN "laws" that they appreciated, would membership in
the UN, as a place to talk and discuss,.. as a meeting hall for all the worlds
people,.. be acceptable.

Thus,.. a meta proposal for the UN,.. to be discussed and acted upon by
whichever body (bodies) is appropriate:

ONLY THOSE UN RESOLUTIONS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY ANY PRESENT
GOVERNMENT OF ANY NATION IS ENFORCEABLE WITHIN SAID NATION'S
TERRITORY OR UPON SAID NATION'S PEOPLE.

This would have the effect of moving the purpose of the UN from being
a "GOVERNMENT" to being a "MEETING PLACE".

My impertinent people thank you for your indulgence. :)



-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

There is no benefit in turning the United Nations into a giant tea party. Part of meaningful international progress is pushing some people to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Some resolutions are only effective if every party involve complies. If we ban single-hulled tankers, and two or three nations decide that they don't want to make the investment, we have no solvency. Those two nations still operate unsafe tankers, and the world's oceans are still at risk.

The general problem isn't about the UN infringing on anyone's soveriegnty. That isn't the fault of the United Nations as an institution. It's problem with the disinterested members who vote yes on anything that hits the main floor. It's a problem with proposal writers, specific people who don't care about the rules of sovereignty, who put resolutions up that force the changes you don't agree with.

A resolution exists to prevent new policy that would unduly infringe on a nation's right to govern their people within their own terrority.

Plus, the UN part of the game would be much less fun.

There is no benefit in turning the United Nations into a
giant tea party. Part of meaningful international progress is pushing some
people to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Some resolutions are only
effective if every party involve complies. If we ban single-hulled tankers, and
two or three nations decide that they don't want to make the investment,
we have no solvency. Those two nations still operate unsafe tankers, and
the world's oceans are still at risk.

The general problem isn't about the UN infringing on anyone's soveriegnty.
That isn't the fault of the United Nations as an institution. It's problem with
the disinterested members who vote yes on anything that hits the main
floor. It's a problem with proposal writers, specific people who don't care
about the rules of sovereignty, who put resolutions up that force the
changes you don't agree with.

A resolution exists to prevent new policy that would unduly infringe on a
nation's right to govern their people within their own terrority.

My premise is that there IS MORE BENEFIT to being an effective "Tea Party"
than a dysfunctional "Government"..!

Take the tanker problem, as an example.

What if all UN nations resolved that only double-hulled tankers could enter UN
member ports, and that no UN member state companies could have any
business dealings with any company using single-hulled tankers?

This provides a huge incentive for those companies (and thus governments)
to convert their fleets to double-hulled tankers WITHOUT impossing
ANY "LAW" upon the people of a sovereign nation..!

That is the proper use of UN power. NOT as the power "of momma and pappa
to punish" but as the power of adults to find the best path.

The problem IS PRECISELY about the UN infringing on national sovereignty..!

If the only options are to accept the tyranny of unconditional acceptance of
ALL UN "RESOLUTIONS" (which it treats more as LAWS than RESOLUTIONS),
or to simply withdraw from the UN, then the UN has proved itself unworthy of
it's basic function.

A functional "Tea Party" is better than a dysfunctional "Government"..!

GOVERNMENT is internal to nations, DISCUSSION is between nations.

The basic fallacy of the present UN is that it is a government.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

The point of the NationStates UN is to infringe upon national sovereignty.

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.)

If the only options are to accept the tyranny of unconditional acceptance of ALL UN "RESOLUTIONS" (which it treats more as LAWS than RESOLUTIONS), or to simply withdraw from the UN, then the UN has proved itself unworthy of it's basic function.

That is the basic function of this UN. There really is nothing anyone can do about it except ask the admin for a change. In technical.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The NationStates United Nations does tread on national sovereignty, which is why some of us fight so hard for and against proposals, to weed out the ones that severely limit national powers through the international body.

The point of the NationStates UN is to infringe
upon national sovereignty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the FAQ
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.) .

And why do you think "real nations" DO ignore the resolutions they don't
like..? :)

Wouldn't it be more interesting if the NS UN used the power of sensibly
written resolutions (those that specifically DON'T infringe on national
sovereignty) to influence ALL the world's nations to "do the right things", as
opposed to having to resort to the lowest form of communication available,..
FORCE..?!

A generic form of such a resolution might look like this:

We (the assembled discussors of the Great Meeting Place designated as "The
United Nations") resolve to give no economic support from the wealth of our
nations to "Bad Guys R Us" in their enterprise to promote "Bad Guy Insect and
Forest Destroyer".

Wouldn't a meeting place of adults be more productive than the impositions
of the "Great Mommy State" be more enjoyable..?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

My premise is that there IS MORE BENEFIT to being an effective "Tea Party" than a dysfunctional "Government"!

The problem is that it isn't an effective tea party. If the UN can't force a nation to give up it's ways for the betterment of mankind on issues of international policy. If two or three nations decided that banning single-hull tankers was too expensive, that puts the world's oceans at risk. If you go back to the debate thread, you'd see that it wasn't just two or three nations, it was dozens. Should the UN go around enacting policy to change your state religion and force you to be a communist paradise? No. But the UN needs the power to strong-arm nations into making progress.

We (the assembled discussors of the Great Meeting Place designated as "The United Nations") resolve to give no economic support from the wealth of our nations to "Bad Guys R Us" in their enterprise to promote "Bad Guy Insect and Forest Destroyer".

Except for that part where making reference to any specific nation in a proposal is prohibited. The reason we have the system we do now is because it works with the rules we've been given. Since you can't change the code of the game to allow nations to thumb their nose at policy they don't like, it's a moot point.

That is the basic function of this UN.
There really is nothing anyone can do about it except ask the admin for a
change. In technical.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Or perhaps live with the present conditions, and RP a disgruntled little nation
with a strong point of view who INSISTS that they be heard, and isn't afraid
to be a bit obnoxious..! :)

If the admins want to change the system,.. go for it.

I personally would do something like have a "founder nation" (admin-nation)
have veto power over ANY resolution that doesn't stand the "non-
sovereignty violation" test.

This might encourage better written, non-sovereignty violating, resolutions..!

YA THINK..!? :)

But then again,.. I'm just as happy to be an annoying gadfly, merrily
complaining at the idiocy of the "MOMMY-STATE" makers....

:)

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I like the game the way it is.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We (the assembled discussors of the Great Meeting Place designated as "The United Nations") resolve to give no economic support from the wealth of our nations to "Bad Guys R Us" in their enterprise to promote "Bad Guy Insect and Forest Destroyer".

Surely that would involve forcing UN members to stop trading with bad guys r us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We (the assembled discussors of the Great Meeting Place designated as "The
United Nations") resolve to give no economic support from the wealth of our
nations to "Bad Guys R Us" in their enterprise to promote "Bad Guy Insect and
Forest Destroyer".

Surely that would involve forcing UN members to stop trading with bad guys r
us?

:)

Those who do not stop trading with BGRU would be chided and laughed at for
being silly in saying one thing and doing another, and might have there own
industries sanctioned by those who laugh at them.

If members do not agree, in reality, that the sanctions toward BGRU are a
good idea, then they prove themselves to be hypocrits, and worthy of being
treated with disrespect and intolerance.

This does NOT mean that they must leave the meeting hall, as the meeting
hall is not owned by anyone, or by the "collective assembly"..!

In my land, in a situation like this, the assembled families would conclude that
there was something not considered when the "resolution" was made to
sanction the BGRU, and would ask the "laughed-at-one" (the hypocrit) why
they SAID one thing and yet DID another..?

Their reasoning might have some merit,.. or it might not.

..but no one is forced to obey rules they disagree with,.. they are merely
encouraged NOT to act like silly unthinking children.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Thing is, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure are fairly meaningless outside RP, and many of us don't RP.

Thing is, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure are
fairly meaningless outside RP, and many of us don't RP.

OOC:

:)

I see NO non-RP mechanics in NS at all..!!

I would be more than appreciative for some assistance in discovering these
so-called game mechanics..!

:)


/OOC

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Read the FAQs and the stickys.

Read the FAQs and the stickys.


OOC:

So very helpful.

But seriously,... I've been through the stickies.

Nothing.... there IS NO MEAT to this OTHER THAN the RP.

And I do love the RP... by the way...! :)

..but I'd really like to see where there are any mechanics involved.

Thanks again..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"