NationStates Jolt Archive

While this is not a proposal in the technical sense, The Empire of Nostre Patrus would like to address certain issues and hopes that you would indulge us for a short time.

It has come to our attention that there have been many unnecessary proposals brought to the floor for debate. While our empire feels a kindred spirit with some of the authors, we feel that the actions which are being proposed are unnecessary and encroach on the sovereignty of individual nations.

Perhaps it is because others forget that not all governmental systems are the same. What would work for a democracy may have no chance of being practical in a theocracy or socialist system. Certain issues can only be decided on the national, or sometimes state or provincial level.

The United Nations should not be an entity that would reshape a nation and it's culture. If this were to happen, we would lose our own identities, as we all become the same.

The United Nations should be for peace keeping and the settlement of international disputes. If a country's practices, laws, or policies do not affect the citizens of your country within your country's borders, there is no need for international regulation of those practices, laws, or policies.


The Empire of Nostre Patrus thanks you for your time.

Matthew Anderson
Representative for The Empire Of Nostre Patrus

Reread the UN FAQ.

I did read the UN FAQ, and nowhere does it say that I can not make an address to the UN.

What I'm trying to explain is that we should consider the fact that members of the UN are still independent and sovereign nations.

There are some issues, such as mediation and world wide aid/peacekeeping that should be adressed. However, subjects such as world-wide lowereing of voting age and legalization of recreational drugs, that should be decided by inidividual nations.

And while not every proposal mentioned is an issue of national sovereignty, most of those that I've seen have no business being on the floor of a government that can enact resolutions that affect that world on an international scale.

The UN can do whatever it wants. It is only limited by democracy and the rules.

I think anything monumentally stupid will be weeded out by either/both.

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

I'd like to point our that the scope for dealing with truly international issues in the NSUN is somewhat limited. We've already passed all the weapons restrictions that will get passed, and since in NS, the relationships between nations aren't formalised in gameplay except in the UN, it makes it hard to legislate on many issues such as war, which only exists in RP - half outside the game (UN resolutions now aren't allowed to control forum activity).

This UN is not allowed by game rules to establish a peacekeeping force, ruling that out, and legislating on humanitarian/military intervention is tricky, because we aren't allowed to address specific nations and situations, and blanket judgements in undefiable resolutions are usually inappropriate for such complex issues.

Aid is similarly difficult, since UN resolutions affect the stats of all nations equally - we couldn't make a resolution which would improve poor economies whilst raising the tax rate or bringing down the economy of rich countries.

The UN can do whatever it wants. It is only limited by democracy and the rules.

I think anything monumentally stupid will be weeded out by either/both.

If the UN is limited, it can not do whatever it wants. The UN therefore requests that such comments be weeded out in addition to the proposals.

It has come to our attention that there have been many unnecessary proposals brought to the floor for debate. While our empire feels a kindred spirit with some of the authors, we feel that the actions which are being proposed are unnecessary and encroach on the sovereignty of individual nations.

Then, do something about it. I'm sorry if I don't believe in spouting off words of wisdom, but I know better in the NS UN and it's this: Actions speak louder than words.

Propose your own proposals, support the ones that you feel are worthy, and confront those who would rather waste the UN's time... speaking of action does nothing but further the ignorance of the entire body.

Perhaps it is because others forget that not all governmental systems are the same. What would work for a democracy may have no chance of being practical in a theocracy or socialist system. Certain issues can only be decided on the national, or sometimes state or provincial level.

Technically, all issues can be decided at the national or international level. It just so happens that a majority here or there believe that certain issues are immediately up for grabs in one of these categories instead of looking at the broader range of issue.

Abortion rights, for example, can be granted at a national or international level. Most nations, however, would like to see it as a sovereign issue so that they do not have to deal with the ramifications of their citizens' personal choices as being morally corrupt. Thus, they control it, regulate it, and all is right in their country... just not in the world.

The United Nations should not be an entity that would reshape a nation and it's culture. If this were to happen, we would lose our own identities, as we all become the same.

The UN is a body of change, and as change dictates, change is the only thing that can succesfully redefine the validity of a culture. Many cultures die, because they simply cannot adhere to changes occuring around them or within them for that matter. The UN seeks, diplomatically, to make things right with the world one resolution at a time.

The United Nations should be for peace keeping and the settlement of international disputes.

Yes, one facet of the UN should be dedicated to these matters, but there is so much potential for the UN to be me so much more than just this alone.

If a country's practices, laws, or policies do not affect the citizens of your country within your country's borders, there is no need for international regulation of those practices, laws, or policies.

Incorrect. Just because a country deems something right or wrong does not mean that it should not be regulated in such a way that the international way of life is compromised.

If you country believes in pedophilia, for example, why shouldn't my country do everything in its power to stop such a horrible and heinous use of children? Instead of just my country taking action, however, our ambassadors can take it to the halls of the UN and create legislation that the world can agree to which will stop such practices.

Hmm.... Doublethink