NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine one day in your country. Your people are going on with lives as what is normal for them. Some recent news is playing on the radio, maybe about the Violetist's Cult or about persecution of cannibals, etc.

All of a sudden, paratroopers from a neighboring country, let's say, in my position, maybe the Allied States of Ehrereich, start landing in your capital and smaller towns because Ehrereich's leader decided, "HEY! We don't like that!" and invades without a declaration of war in the name of peace.

The occupation forces put your people down, enslave them (worse than you already do), take your money, use your resources, and generally make your life a living hell.

What does this have to do with my proposal, you ask? Well, if my proposal is made into a resolution and passed, U.N. nations will be prohibited from occupying your country without your permission. If your government wishes to do so, they telegram the UN governing council, who will debate over it, and should send forces immediately.

The fact of the matter is, what goes on in your country is your business, and noone should be able to act on you w/o the part of declaring war.

There doesn't appear to actually be a proposal submitted, and the description above isn't really in the form of a proposal. Is this just a trial balloon to see if there is any interest?

If that's the case, then Frisbeeteria categorically votes NO on such a proposal. First, no government in power is EVER going to give permission allowing themselves to be invaded. Second, there is no such thing as a UN Governing Council. Third, the UN has no voice in matters of our national security, so we're not especially interested in opening the doors to UN peacekeeping troops (which the UN also doesn't have).

Finally, statements like "invades without a declaration of war in the name of peace." just make no sense whatsoever. When has any invader declared war in the name of peace?

Sorry, no.

You misunderstand me. The proposal is against invasion.

Just think of it this way. In your country, you mind your own business. Someone then lands a "peace-keeping" force in your cities, and depending on your military, you can either destroy those forces, or in a worst case scenario, be taken over.

This was an attempt to get more interest.

Here is the proposal in full form.

Description: In this world, factions and certain nations are known to "peace-keep" for the U.N.

PROMOTING the alocation of resources and personnel to create a nation's own suitable anti-terrorist teams and military and police divisions to police the nation.

REALIZING that some dire emergencies require these peace-keeping forces.
REALIZING that certain unnamed nations will use these peace-keeping forces for its own advantange in taking over key resources of a fellow member of the U.N.
REALIZING that an unwelcome occupation is an invasion.

REJECTS any action such as occupation that is unwarranted and unwelcome to another nation's government.

DECLARES that no other nation may occupy another nation with a "peace-keeping" force unless that nation's government has asked for specific help.
DECLARES that each nation must ATTEMPT to deal with its own problems before contacting the U.N. governing council and asking for help.

I'm basically saying that no U.N. nation may occupy another U.N. Nation with a peace-keeping force. This probably won't be passed the first time, and I welcome any help the community will provide in improving this.

And I didn't know there wasn't an actual "governing council." My bad.

The Kingdom of Heiliger supports this proposal or idea.

You misunderstand me. The proposal is against invasion.Which is usually an R.P. or Role Play event and is usually mutual. So really, I don't think we can regulate this one. That and,

" Well, if you don't lock your doors at night ... " ;)
Just think of it this way.Surgeon Generals Warning : " Constant thinking may impair your Forum surfing with logic, and cause your head to ASS-PLODE ! " :d In your country, you mind your own business.Oh, never, we in Komokom are all a bunch of nosey bastards. :)Someone then lands a "peace-keeping" force in your cities, and depending on your military, you can either destroy those forces, or in a worst case scenario, be taken over.Or you can introduce them to your I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon. You know, for when you don't want to R.P.This was an attempt to get more interest.Sadly, I think my meagre student account might have a higher interest rate in regards to the realities of the situation.Here is the proposal in full form.Batter up ! That, and, in future please consider posting it up initially if you already have it written up.Description: In this world, factions and certain nations are known to "peace-keep" for the U.N.Via role-play because there is no official U.N. body for such action, nor is their going to be one for various programming reasons.PROMOTING the alocation of resources and personnel to create a nation's own suitable anti-terrorist teams and military and police divisions to police the nation.Yeah I think thats an okay clause ... Of course assuming the nation has a military and or police force. And how one decides what level of adequacy those resources are.REALIZING that some dire emergencies require these peace-keeping forces.Ummm o-kay ... kind of straying back into R.P. here ...REALIZING that certain unnamed nations will use these peace-keeping forces for its own advantange in taking over key resources of a fellow member of the U.N.Well that goes against the entire idea of peace-keeping I think .... and ummm ... REALIZING that an unwelcome occupation is an invasion.Not quite, more like the result of an invasion actually ...REJECTS any action such as occupation that is unwarranted and unwelcome to another nation's government.So R.P. invasion between U.N. nations is bad, it seems.DECLARES that no other nation may occupy another nation with a "peace-keeping" force unless that nation's government has asked for specific help.Fine. They can just get together and invade any-way. I also don't know if this is allowed cause it could be considered institutionising rules for another part of the game.DECLARES that each nation must ATTEMPT to deal with its own problems before contacting the U.N. governing council and asking for help.[/uote]And, as you know, this clause is illegal/defunct.[QUOTE=Berzingen]I'm basically saying that no U.N. nation may occupy another U.N. Nation with a peace-keeping force. This probably won't be passed the first time, and I welcome any help the community will provide in improving this.Fine, they can just invade then. Now, se I don't think it will ever pass in this form because it inhibits game-play in Role Playing threads, etc, etc.And I didn't know there wasn't an actual "governing council." My bad.So that clause can be cut or changed drastically next time around I hope.

As Komokom has said, invasions are a completely different matter in RP to RL because they are ALWAYS mutually agreed. You can ALWAYS simply ignore if you want to.

Second, this is probably illegal based on the ruling against Hersfold's Olympics proposal - the UN cannot mandate or ban activities on the forum.

Third, even the principle is messed up. Sometimes invasions are the lesser of two evils - to give a RL example, what if the Allies hadn't been able to invade Nazi Germany without Hitler's permission?

My nation has compusary military service- their rifles are kept at home and we can assemble an army of 250,000 citizen soldiers withing 30 hours. we are not afraid nor are we militeristic.

i do not support this proposal not because i disagree but i cannot see this proposal working properly in the even of an invasion.. no invading nation is ever going to ask if they can invade or stay for the occupation.. after an invasion who would they ask to say yes?! No war in history has ever started with the words "can we invade please?" from Recently Iraq or as far back as the pelopenesian wars"

*leaves the discussion*

Another RL example, specifically to do with UN peacekeepers - the East Timorese independence vote.

If the UN had had to ask permission from the Indonesian government to send in peacekeepers, then the massacre would have been even worse than it was.

I cannot agree to such a proposal on prinicipal, let alone the fact that it breaks the rules of what is suitable in a proposal.

Ok, let's see here. I'm gonna throw this one in the trash, seeing as how it is not able to be regulated.

The principle of the matter was that no nation could invade another nation until a state of war was declared. Forgot to put that in there.

This one is gonna be destroyed.

Ah, that explains it better. Much clearer. Keep going with it.

The principle of the matter was that no nation could invade another nation until a state of war was declared. Forgot to put that in there.
Yeah, that's actually an excellent idea, but it probably belongs as part of a more general definition of the rules of war and of war crimes, which we haven't had yet - we've only had a definition of the rights of POWs and of children. Anyone got any enthusiasm for the idea?

Essentially, this appears to be an attempt to confirm that the UN as a body opposes the violent occupation of one country by another. This is a no-brainer but still may be worth confirming. The difficulty comes from situations such as the Real World Simulator Problem of East Timor (so perhaps we would require an exception clause), plus the consequences of setting the UN position in stone: the UN ought to publicly declare its condemnation of every invasion from the moment the resolution is passed. As long as we are content with this and there is no mandatory UN intervention arising from the resolution, then we have little to fear here.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The discussion about the legality of the original idea here has me wondering...

Could a proposal establishing a UN peacekeeping force be considered legal? Not proposing that it take any specific action, just something that set up such a force. It seems like an obvious International Security sort of proposal, but the only actual military action (as has been pointed out above) is RP-based.

I don't think that it would be legal. I vaguely remember one of the mods (can't remember which) saying something along the lines of 'it is illegal to create a military force under the control of the UN'.

And if it is even possibly legal to write up, it would require some very, very, very precise wording. Like, very precise. To the point of physically hurting your mind as you write it, ;)