NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is intended as a follow up to the United Nations Resolution "Rights and Duties of UN States".

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/77117/page=UN_proposal/start=40)


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Domnonia

Description: The Republic of Domnonia proposes to

ASK if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?

RECALLING among others, United Nations Resolution Universal Bill of Rights; Wolfish Convention on POW; Children in War; Female Genital Mutilation; Refugee Protection Act; and Religious Tolerance,

Further RECALLING United Nations Resolution Rights and Duties of UN States,

ANSWERS that the following dictate a UN Member States responsibility to protect,

Article 1 Basic Principles
(a) State sovereignty implies responsibilty, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people and their rights lies within itself;
(b) Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of sovereignty yields to the United Nations responsibility to protect;

Article 2 Foundations
The foundations of the United Nations responsibility to protect lie in;
(a) obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty;
(b) specific obligations under Universal Human Rights Resolution 26, and all other Human and civil rights reolutions;

Article 3 Elements
The responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities;
(a)The resposibility to PREVENT: to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made conflict putting populations at risk;
(b)The responsibility to REACT: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like prosecution, and in extreme cases, military intervention;
(c)The responsibility to REBUILD: to provide, particularly after military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation adressing the caus eof the harm that the intervention was meant to halt or prevent;

Article 4 Priorities
(a) Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect;
(b) The excercise of the responsibility to both prevent and react should always involve less intrusive and coercive measures being considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied;

Millions of human beings remain at the mercy of state repression. This is a stark and undeniable reality and it is at the heart of all issues with which the U.N. has been wrestling. What is at stake is not making the world safe for large powers, or trampling over the sovereign rights of small ones, but delivering practical protection for ordinary people because their states are unable or unwilling to for them.

The DRA wholeheartedly endorses this proposal. I noticed a couple of typing errors and such in there which you may want to tidy up before you put the proposal on the list for endorsements.

The DRA wholeheartedly endorses this proposal. I noticed a couple of typing errors and such in there which you may want to tidy up before you put the proposal on the list for endorsements.
Oh my.

Unfortunately, the Republic of Domnonia has allready submitted said proposal(typing errors and all!! :confused: ). We do, however, thank the progressive peoples of Arturistania for their support and keen eye.

Greetings,

We find this proposal to be very valid in all the points it makes, and therefore believe it should be endorsed.

As we are unable to do so ourselves, we would just like to express our support here and state that, if the proposal comes to a vote, we will vote for it.

Regards,

Hakopam

Actually, I do have a problem with implication of the wording. And maybe it can be clarified.

Am I to assume this allows for UN involvment in internal civil wars of a nationstate?

I do have a problem with that principle. Especially on the views you express of "the state". Civil War generally results from a governmental failure... No matter what cursory systematics brought it about. And of course, Civil War implies factions of people fighting due to the failure of said nationstates governmental body. And the resolution implies that the UN have the authority to enter such conflict, with military intervention or otherwise.

To state it first off, All of Tekania's alliances have always been based upon a principle of non-interfereance in internal conflict. The primary reason being, internal conflict occurs when the state needs to be replaced, and therefore "Civil War" or more appropriately "Revolution" is a way of creation of the new system. To say the least, there are a multitude of factors that can lead to, and may govern, the factions involved in a civil war. Civil War is always, the people themselves in internal war, to vie for or against a failing government. Under UN principles. I would say it is wise to not get involved in the internal conflict of other nationstates, merely from the fact it is entering an unstable area, to impose a despotism the people themselves are fighting, in most cases.

Every single involvement of one body with another, in an internal conflict, has resulted in a gastly, and unhandleable mess. I move that ivolvement in internal conflict, that is "Civil Wars" should be avoided at all costs. In that they are just that CIVIL, and not GOVERNMENTAL or STATE wars. And therefore, the precept of PROTECTING THE PEOPLE becomes a view which is rendered null and void by the situation, since it is the PEOPLE themselves who have gone to war.

We may have formatted the proposal improperly, or in a confusing manner. However, to us, it reads quite clearly under what circumstances the U.N. would intervene in an internal conflict.

Article 1(b) states, "Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war...........and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of sovereignty yields to the United Nations responsibility to protect; "


What follows, Article 2 Foundations, is what the UN is meant to protect.

So, sovereignty yields to the United Nations responsibility to protect specific obligations under Universal Human Rights Resolution 26, and all other Human and civil rights revolutions;

We believe that a population that is suffering serious harm, such as that they are guaranteed to be free from as members of a UN State according to UN Resolutions, deserve the protection of their rights regardless of what "revolution" is occuring in their state. In fact, we believe that in a time of civil war, the responsibility to protect human rights is stronger than ever, to ensure that any future governing group also respects UN Human Rights laws as long as they are a member of the UN Body, and that human rights are not trampled upon during transitional periods.

By the logic of Tekania, during a civil war within a UN Member State, a population gives up it's guaranteed freedoms by partaking in civil war, and so a UN Member State undergoing such a situation is in itself no longer a UN Member State.

We do not agree with that however.

Isn't there a fundamental problem with this? Much of it seems geared to dealing with governments which violate human rights resolutions, but this is of course impossible, since NSUN resolutions cannot be defied.

Isn't there a fundamental problem with this? Much of it seems geared to dealing with governments which violate human rights resolutions, but this is of course impossible, since NSUN resolutions cannot be defied.

----Why can't they? I may be a member of the UN, but in my imaginary world I could be forcing children to sew soccor balls right now.

Every resolution can be looked at as impossible anyway. Within "game" mechanics, one can not truly "Protect Historical Sites" that are imaginary, or protect imaginary oceans from pollution. The reason for this being that we are dealing with an imaginary world.

This proposal is made to reaffirm and add to current UN Resolution, adding more depth to gameplay as a result.----

Just one question - this relates to Tekania's earlier question about civil war.

You replied that the government had to be "unable or unwilling" to do anything about the problem before the UN would step in. But who gets to make that decision? Maybe there is a reason the state government is not getting involved in the dispute - because it doesn't want to take sides or inflame the issue any further. And maybe the government appears to be unable to deal with it, but really is dealing with it quite well.

My people chose me and my Council members to run the country for a reason - they have faith that we can do the job. I am not sure they would appriciate the heavy-handed, uninvited interference of the UN, especially if it overules their democractically elected leaders.

----Why can't they? I may be a member of the UN, but in my imaginary world I could be forcing children to sew soccor balls right now.

The FAQ says this:

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 I get the impression that the mods are firmly of the opinion that enforcement is absolute for the purposes of gameplay.

Actually, I do have a problem with implication of the wording. And maybe it can be clarified.

Am I to assume this allows for UN involvment in internal civil wars of a nationstate?

I do have a problem with that principle. Especially on the views you express of "the state". Civil War generally results from a governmental failure... No matter what cursory systematics brought it about. And of course, Civil War implies factions of people fighting due to the failure of said nationstates governmental body. And the resolution implies that the UN have the authority to enter such conflict, with military intervention or otherwise.

To state it first off, All of Tekania's alliances have always been based upon a principle of non-interfereance in internal conflict. The primary reason being, internal conflict occurs when the state needs to be replaced, and therefore "Civil War" or more appropriately "Revolution" is a way of creation of the new system. To say the least, there are a multitude of factors that can lead to, and may govern, the factions involved in a civil war. Civil War is always, the people themselves in internal war, to vie for or against a failing government. Under UN principles. I would say it is wise to not get involved in the internal conflict of other nationstates, merely from the fact it is entering an unstable area, to impose a despotism the people themselves are fighting, in most cases.

Every single involvement of one body with another, in an internal conflict, has resulted in a gastly, and unhandleable mess. I move that ivolvement in internal conflict, that is "Civil Wars" should be avoided at all costs. In that they are just that CIVIL, and not GOVERNMENTAL or STATE wars. And therefore, the precept of PROTECTING THE PEOPLE becomes a view which is rendered null and void by the situation, since it is the PEOPLE themselves who have gone to war.

I disagree entirely. Governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens, if they are unable or unwilling to do so the UN needs to step in to protect them. This resolution gives the UN the ability to intervene on humanitarian grounds to aid and protect people. The people themselves have gone to war, but there are non-combatants caught in the crossfire. What about food and water supplies? Medical supplies? Who protects the internally displaced people? The UN has the obligation to help these people and protect them. It is also the UN's job to maintain peace. If a civil war breaks out, the UN should have the right to send forces to the region to engage in immediate peacemaking as well as

1. Protect humanitarian convoys
2. Protect internally displaced people
3. Provide food, water, and medical supplies to the people

This resolution is about helping people in times of war and strife, how can you not support this? It is for the protection of human beings! This will help aid and protect those who are unable to defend themselves in a war zone because they are caught in a conflict and unable to access the essentials of life.

OOC: As a Canadian I am very very pleased to see this idea come forward as a resolution. I am a very strong supporter of the RTP and I hope the UN will adopt this Canadian document! We must protect humanity and protect people when their government can't or is unwilling to do so. We must also help protect the non-combatants and deliver humanitarian supplies to prevent the loss of innocent life. Also, the UN has the obligation to maintain peace and where peace has failed, it should have the obligation to make peace in the region to protect the civilian population. We have a duty, an obligation, and a responsibility to protect people everywhere!

I feel profoundly uneasy about this proposal. Who will decide when a certain nation does violate human rights?! Will it be decided in the same manner Georg W. decided that Iraq needed beating? And make no mistake, I was not amused by big W.!!

my understanding is that the UN would need to decide that, not individual states.

I disagree entirely. Governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens, if they are unable or unwilling to do so the UN needs to step in to protect them. This resolution gives the UN the ability to intervene on humanitarian grounds to aid and protect people. The people themselves have gone to war, but there are non-combatants caught in the crossfire. What about food and water supplies? Medical supplies? Who protects the internally displaced people? The UN has the obligation to help these people and protect them. It is also the UN's job to maintain peace. If a civil war breaks out, the UN should have the right to send forces to the region to engage in immediate peacemaking as well as

1. Protect humanitarian convoys
2. Protect internally displaced people
3. Provide food, water, and medical supplies to the people

This resolution is about helping people in times of war and strife, how can you not support this? It is for the protection of human beings! This will help aid and protect those who are unable to defend themselves in a war zone because they are caught in a conflict and unable to access the essentials of life.

OOC: As a Canadian I am very very pleased to see this idea come forward as a resolution. I am a very strong supporter of the RTP and I hope the UN will adopt this Canadian document! We must protect humanity and protect people when their government can't or is unwilling to do so. We must also help protect the non-combatants and deliver humanitarian supplies to prevent the loss of innocent life. Also, the UN has the obligation to maintain peace and where peace has failed, it should have the obligation to make peace in the region to protect the civilian population. We have a duty, an obligation, and a responsibility to protect people everywhere!

I think you miss the point, one of the primary wordings is "Military intervention" not to mention it is a matter of process, during most civil wars there are one or more interim governments of the factions fighting... So the matter is of course WHAT GOVERNMENT... The actual UN member government may no longer exist, or have split amongst the warring factions... In which case, it cannot even be ascertained if they are a UN nation anymore. Which further leads into the realm of propriety... Does the UN have the right to the direct violation of sovereignty, sure they have the right to indirect... will UN "peacekeepers" be treated as an agressive enemy invasion force... Do the people even want the UN... Sure, the previous government may have been a member, but that does not automatically mean the new factions are members in mere lieu of previous territorial association...

In dealing with territories undergoing civil strife, it has always been the practice of the republic to treat the situation as if it was any other war, whereby all the factions are native, and they are undergoing the pangs of reformation of a new nation... What this proposal is more geared towards is nation building... not human rights protection... The people themselves are the ones who will determine the new nation that will arrise from the Chaos, not an unauthorized and, frankly, regardless of resolution, ILLEGAL UN intervention...

If the Constitutional Republic of Tekania government colapses, being a UN member nation... And Civil War breaks out between new factions to create some new nation... Does the UN have the right to violate the people's sovereignty of a territory, which was part of a UN member nation that no longer exists? My response is no....

I'm sorry Art, but this proposal sounds more like Imperialism, than Human Rights... It's merely a way for leftists and rightists to take over areas of power, of which they have no authorization by the people to do so. And this is the reason, why in times of state change-overs from internal civil war, strict non-interferance should be adhered to...at all costs.

Even when we were part of the initial formation of the CDEA, when the question of internal civil war came up, we opted for strict non-interferance... As from past experience we all knew what happenes when third parties involve themselves in the internal affairs of another nations revolution...

I'm sorry, but in the interest and fundamental principles of freedom, I cannot approve of this proposal...

Do the people even want the UN... Sure, the previous government may have been a member, but that does not automatically mean the new factions are members in mere lieu of previous territorial association...


It is the belief of the Republic of Domnonia that any and all persons who are SUFFERING would infact, want help, regardless of what kind of jostling is going on within it's country.

When a nation state applies to the UN, it is most likely supported by the majority of it's population. So, if that nation state were to experiance civil strife(which usually comes about because of oppression), how could the people be denied their human rights?

"OH, hey!! Were having civil war! Why don't we start raping women, and displacing ethnic minorities from their homes. Hey, while were at it, why don't we just kill anyone who is a differant color than us! We can still vote at the UN, though we don't have to adhere to any rules!! Yay!!"

What this proposal is more geared towards is nation building... not human rights protection...
No.

What this proposal is geared towards is ensuring fundamental human rights are MAINTAINED and RESPECTED within UN Member states even during times of political dissent.



OOC:As from past experience we all knew what happenes when third parties involve themselves in the internal affairs of another nations revolution...
OOC:Just for clarity, are you getting into real world stuff here aswell?
Also as a side note, I am wondering what your position on Darfur would be?

Speaking as the author of Rights and Duties of UN States, I'd like to state for the record that I don't like my resolution listed as justification for this proposal. This goes far beyond anything we ever invisioned or proposed in terms of UN interventionism. This is the creation of a UN Humanitarian Army as an enforcement arm of the UN as nanny-state and/or World Government.

As such, I oppose this proposal in its entirety.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Retired
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

It is the belief of the Republic of Domnonia that any and all persons who areSUFFERING would infact, want help, regardless of what kind of jostling is going on within it's country.


No.

What this proposal is geared towards is ensuring fundamental human rights are MAINTAINED and RESPECTED within UN Member states even during times of political dissent.




Just for clarity, are you getting into real world stuff here aswell?

No... I am not....

Mere months ago, the United States of Nick is under revolution... In an attempt to protect the human rights of the revolutionaries another nation, Random Kingdom, attempts to intervene, the result is no longer a civil war, USN along with several other alliances attempts massive invasion of RK... Had not Tekanian and regional alliances forces entered the middle of the battleground, and used force to bring the USN and RK to a peace table, the thing could have perpetuated into a virtual world war.... However, the war was began under the concept of "protecting human rights" in the first place.

This may mean little to you, but this Republic has had to put our own militaries lives on the line to clean up the horrendous mess created by governments who act on the behalf of "human rights protection" inside civil war strewn areas...

This proposal is far to aggressive.... I would move on it better if "military intervension" and "prosecution" were removed... If it only sought to aid people with food and medical supplies, than under, what I can no longer consider anything but imperialistic nation building.

I would further move, that it would be a stretch to even consider any nation undergoing the massive civil strife that this resolution implies, can even be classified as a "UN member" anymore.

A UN member in civil war with no functioning government is still a UN member. Real life example, Somalia. There isn't a functioning government of Somalia but it is still a member of the UN. Sorry to resort to a real life example.

If you want to bring that up, fine, it is certainly no supporter of your views... Somalia is living real world proof of the rank falacy that third party intervention is benefitial to regions/nations in massive civil strife, and in fact, intervention does no more than continue and encourage internal strife... And the UN did nothing to stop human rights violations... in fact, the UN went in and activly violated human rights, under the assumption of "humanatarian relief and protection..."... However there is a difference, the UN membership is dependant upon UN recognition in the Real World, in NationStates, it is dependant upon the legitimate government applying for membership..

Your assumption that a member nation's original government was part of the UN because of the populace is also rank falacy... If there is revolution in occurance, you can bet on the fact that the reason it is there is that the original government had no interest in the populace as a whole... As such, the status of membership of one or more emerging governments membership, based upon the prior membership of either a dead or dying former regime, is a stretch at the least... Such can be found in Somalia as well... Prior to the fall and revolution, the nation was ruled by a despotic tyrant...

I'm sorry, to coin your own phrase, the very idea of interfering in the internal affairs of a newly forming nation, for any reason what-so-ever, is barbaric, and uncivilized... Once the nation has emerged, and whatever the new government the people form has grown and decided to attach their new nation to the UN charter... then we may act on human rights, if the case still exists.... But as for civil war and revolution... the UN should maintain strict non-interferance... There must be limits to our power...

I'm sorry, and it saddens me to see this from someone who claims to be democratic.... but for someone who is so interested in the will of the people, you do a whole lot of assuming what people's wills are....

OOC- Okay. Now were into the real world.

Rwanda.

If you can honestly say that intervention wasn't necessary in such a situation,

OOC- Okay. Now were into the real world.

Rwanda.

If you can honestly say that intervention wasn't necessary in such a situation, you are an evil, evil person.

Intervention wasn't necessary... The nation, in its formation, through the rebel Rwandese Patriotic Front overthrew the genocidal interim regime...

I'm sorry, my principle still stands... We must let uncontroled land areas, undergoing political formation in revolution, run their course, and then deal with the functional government that emerges...

Anything more, and you are assuming the will of a people who have not expressed their own voice yet...

It's not evil... it's called wisdom, you should develope some... it actually helps in knowing when and when not to act. If you enter a region undergoing political upheaval, regardless of your intentions, you will be viewed as on one factions side against another, and therefore be subject to attack by one or more factions... in addition, you cannot know who are and are not revolutionaries, very few revolutionary parties wear "uniforms" and operate like legitimate armies... therefore those delivering aid are more likely to be shot by those who are being given the aid...

If people are going to have a voice, they will need to attain it themselves, and not through the imperialistic nationbuilding of a so called "United Nations" conglomerate empire...

You people are progressing from liberal mentality to rank stalinism...

I'm torn by the arguments of both sides. Whilst I would hope that the UN can play a part helping people to restore peace and stability to their lives, I have to agree that 1 there is the excellent point that revolutions are often worth the pain and suffering caused, and that the UN shouldn't try to stop this, and 2 that interference could very well make matters worse.

In the end, I don't think the UN should have a blanket policy that it is always better to suppress violence. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils, and so this is an issue that simply needs to be dealt with by UN nations as individual cases emerge, outside of the confines of iron-clad law (that's what resolutions are, since they cannot be defied).

This is the creation of a UN Humanitarian Army as an enforcement arm of the UN as nanny-state and/or World Government.

As such, I oppose this proposal in its entirety.
As do I.

You do not have our support.

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

Dear Members,

As regional delegate, we would like to know how this proposition would appply in case of nations who have responsabilities for ecological disasters affecting other nations (major source of global warming gases for example).

Commonwealth of Moonriders,
SDEN regional delegate,
Foreign Coordinator.

(b) Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of sovereignty yields to the United Nations responsibility to protect;


A fair number of years back now a number of the population rebelled against the rule of The Church (it was the government at that time). They won and it was overthrown, setting up The Councils we have now.

This would clearly be classed as insurgency and quite possibly internal war. So, under this proposal, would the UN have to step in to support The Church, even though it was the will of most of the people to overthrow it?

I dont know Telenica. My understanding of the document is that the UN would intervene to end the conflict and deliver humanitarian supplies to the civilians caught in the crossfire and to refugee camps for internally displaced people. Then negociations between the factions can occur once there is peace on the ground and the civilians are protected from harm.

I dont know Telenica. My understanding of the document is that the UN would intervene to end the conflict and deliver humanitarian supplies to the civilians caught in the crossfire and to refugee camps for internally displaced people. Then negociations between the factions can occur once there is peace on the ground and the civilians are protected from harm.

(smirk) I want to say TilEnca, but I will let that pass for the moment :}

My problem with this is that the conflict was required. And it had to go out to the end it did. There could be no negotiated peace, because then there would be no point to the fight in the first place.

And this battle had no effect on any other nation. It wasn't fought with nukes, bio-weapons or anything else. It was fought with cross-bows, swords and quite a lot of magic, so there was no external environmental damage.

Why should the UN be allowed to interfere at this point?

Speaking as the author of Rights and Duties of UN States, I'd like to state for the record that I don't like my resolution listed as justification for this proposal. This goes far beyond anything we ever invisioned or proposed in terms of UN interventionism. This is the creation of a UN Humanitarian Army as an enforcement arm of the UN as nanny-state and/or World Government.


I've always felt that your resolution essentially says, "The UN should respect sovereignty, but it doesn't ever have to because those are the NS UN rules." It is in reality trying to say two different things at the same time.

Rwanda.

If you can honestly say that intervention wasn't necessary in such a situation, you are an evil, evil person.


Intervention wasn't necessary...

Aha! Scully, there's Proof! Fetch us some stakes and silver bullets--this sucker's gonna fry!

*puts on Columbo hat, wins the girl, gets ratings of over 50% of viewers, sighs, sticks tongue out, smirks, gives a raccous "oh yeah", stops typing in third person, leaves computers, crosses other bridges with other trolls underneath*

TRIP-TRAP TRIP-TRAP TRIP-TRAP...

OOC- Okay. Now were into the real world.

Rwanda.

If you can honestly say that intervention wasn't necessary in such a situation, you are an evil, evil person.

Actually I may be among the few to say this in this forum, but the real life UN did fail with respect to its lack of response in Rwanda.

However, perhaps here is another way to change your idea. Maybe a resolution condemning genocide (in general terms) is in order. It could be short, and the reason to have such a resolution would be to enable bilateral action should things get out of hand.

I hope this is helpful advice. :)

It is. Thank you! ;)