NationStates Jolt Archive

Drawing the "national sovereignty" line is different for each nation. Almost all of us have somewhat differing views about where the U.N. should or should not stick it's Compliance Ministry. Since it was brought up in this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372116), I realized that it might be instructive for those of us who frequent the U.N. forum to express our views on where we draw or don't draw the "national sovereignty" line. That way we all have a baseline understanding of each other's ideologies, and don't waste our time arguing when we aren't going to get anywhere because we're operating from totally different premises about what the U.N. should do or not do.

I'll start. :)

I'm okay with U.N. involvement in international trade, whether it be free trade or fair trade, and won't use national sovereignty as an argument against such resolutions.

I'm not okay with U.N. involvement in domestic issues, whether they be social or economic, and will consistently pull out the national sovereignty card. Every time. Seriously.

Cases where a proposal is walking the line between domestic and international issues will be considered on a case by case basis.

I am not convinced that national sovereignty should be sacrosanct. Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating a federal UN or inviting anyone to come in and take over my government. However there are situations where the UN should be permitted to pass laws that override the government of a nation on domestic issues. Abortion is one, gay marriage is another. And maybe the best example recently was the Good Samaritan Laws - they restrict the rights of people from one nation to sue people of another in certain situations. Maybe that is not national sovereignty, but it is letting the UN override certain national laws for the benifit of international realations.

But there are other issues where I think it should not be overridden - notably those that deal with crime and punishment (for example forcing me to execute one of my people for a crime, when TilEnca stands opposed to the death pentaly for any crime), and the "personal rights" of people (what age someone can marry, what age someone can vote).

I realise that marriage showed up in both sections there, but there is a difference between the age of majority for a nation and gay rights for a nation. At least I think there is :}

So on the whole I think that national sovereignty can be overriden in certain cases, but in other cases it should not be and should never be.

That doesn't really help a great deal, does it?

I agree with TilEnca in that it is very situational for me (just my opinion) on where that line should be drawn, but in practice I think I'd tend to agree with the Texan Hotrodders in that there are many social issues that I feel are best addressed at a local level.

That said, I like mild resolutions that point to a common international goal, but at the same time tip the hat towards the concept of national sovereignty.

There is a big exception ... I'll tend to vote in favour of environmental resolutions, because many environmental problems do not respect political boundaries. I've voted against a few NS environmental issues, because I felt the plans were not effective, but I do feel that the motivation behind the resolutions was valid.

My stance on sovereignty has changed a lot in the time I've been in the UN. I was pretty vocal in support of sovereignty originally, but it really has become less important to me. The primary reason is when we had a string of four environmental resolutions, I noticed that a growing number of nations were pointing out sovereignty issues. I heard many of the arguments I initially used and saw them from the point of view of somebody who liked the environmental resolutions. Since that time I've kept quiet on resolutions that I felt violated national sovereignty, but even when I didn't support the resolution, I still tried to be helpful.

The marriage law Moral Decency resolution (whos name escapes me at the moment) is a good example. I felt the resolution was too strong ... that is really crossed the line. But at the same time, me and a friend worked out a few ways that that resolution could be reworded such that we'd be happy (he actually no longer plays NationStates -- but I still run ideas by him, as he is a great moral compass).

The DRA is a staunch supporter of the UN and is willing to surrender much of its soverignty to this great institution. The policies, beliefs, and values fit those of this organization and the DRA has no problem supporting resolutions which contravene national soverignty. Obviously each situation is different and needs to be considered carefully, but in general the DRA is pretty open to increased UN control.

Drawing the "national sovereignty" line is different for each nation. Almost all of us have somewhat differing views about where the U.N. should or should not stick it's Compliance Ministry. Since it was brought up in this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372116), I realized that it might be instructive for those of us who frequent the U.N. forum to express our views on where we draw or don't draw the "national sovereignty" line. That way we all have a baseline understanding of each other's ideologies, and don't waste our time arguing when we aren't going to get anywhere because we're operating from totally different premises about what the U.N. should do or not do.

I'll start. :)

I'm okay with U.N. involvement in international trade, whether it be free trade or fair trade, and won't use national sovereignty as an argument against such resolutions.

I'm not okay with U.N. involvement in domestic issues, whether they be social or economic, and will consistently pull out the national sovereignty card. Every time. Seriously.

Cases where a proposal is walking the line between domestic and international issues will be considered on a case by case basis.

Tough Nuts to you.

Reread the UN FAQ. You don't get a choice, your card is meaningless. The UN snaps its fingers, and your nation changes.

I believe that if an issue is not directly international in nature than the UN needs to stay away from it.

I believe that if an issue is not directly international in nature than the UN needs to stay away from it.


That's nice. Never going to happen, but it is a nice point of view. After all, all issues are ultimately international.

That's nice. Never going to happen, but it is a nice point of view. After all, all issues are ultimately international.

Why?

I can't imagine why - for example - what age the people of my nation can have sex at is an international issue.

I'm in broad agreement with Tex & Mik. I'd also add that I'm wary of resolutions that compromise the safety of UN member states by not accounting for the two thirds of the NS universe that aren't subject to their strictures.

The Miko Mono Politburo first wishes to heartily applaude the Texan Hotrodders delegate for raising an issue we ourseleves feel has been a long time in coming.

The Miko Mono Politburo is a proud and unapologetic defender of the concept of national sovereignty as one that trumps almost all others, for if a country lacks soverignity, it is nothing more than a vassal and colony of others. This is something the Miko Mono proletariat CAN NOT and WILL NOT accept.

We believe the United Nations is a useful and neccessary body by which countries can debate and seek common solutions to a number of problems that we share. As one example, we point to some resolutions on the environment that we have supported, albiet warily.

TOO OFTEN, though, we have seen resolutions offered and foolishy approved that not only directly interefere with the rights of countries to govern themselves and set their own policy, but also serve to weaken and harm countries. As an example of this long list, we point to:

1. Resolutions that infringe on matters of national defense, such as foolish moves to ban neccesary weapons and proposals that could allow imperialistic nations to place weapons platforms and spy satellites in space.

2. Resolutions supported by countries claiming to want to protect the environment, but too often are only veiled attempts at damaging other countries' industrial bases and economic concerns.

3. So-called "human rights" resolutiuons that only serve to weaken law and order and introduce degeneracy.

The Miko Mono Politburo feels that these issues are ones to be determined by national governments, and are ones that the United Nations has no business being involved in determining. While some may refer to us slanderously as "paranoid," we cannot help but see such resolutions as attempts by countries to do with international legislation what they know they never could do with military force --- conquer and subjegate the Miko Mono proletariat.

We call on all likeminded U.N. members to work with us in our never-ending efforts to restrain and reign in the all too-often overreaching United Nations, and to stop the veiled efforts by a small select number of weak U.N. members to impose their national will on the rest of us.

Reread the UN FAQ. You don't get a choice, your card is meaningless. The UN snaps its fingers, and your nation changes.
Vastiva, no one who has responded to this topic is unaware of the actual rules of the game. This is not a "UN, GET OUT OF MY SOVEREIGNTY!" topic.

We appear to be having a reasoned discussion about how UN members can attempt to preserve and protect their concept of National Sovereignty by working with the UN to shape legislation and guide future proposals. I'd like to think we can do that and still observe the FAQ.

That's nice. Never going to happen, but it is a nice point of view. After all, all issues are ultimately international.
How are things like my nations marriage laws, prostitution, abortion and euthanasia international? These are all issues that only affect my nation.

I am very pleased that we the UN members have finally decided to tackle this issue and it is my sincere hope that the outcome of this debate will lead to some clear guidelines UN members can use with regard to this subject.

Firstly I would like to make it clear that I feel there is a case for the national sovereignty argument. Without it all issues become intrinsically international and if we allow that, the NSUN will be become more and more exclusive as the diversity of nations become more uniform. This drive towards uniformity I don’t feel will be conducive to the long-term enjoyment of NS because ultimately nations in the UN will all have more or less the same views about most topics. I personally love the diversity of the NS world and the nations in it, I feel in this discussion we should be careful not to sacrifice that diversity.

How do I define sovereignty? For me it is a rather subjective method, because in the end I make a decision on how I feel. I tend to ask myself the following questions:

a) Do I feel that a proposal/resolution will unduly have an effect on how we define our way of life in Telidia?

b) If the answer to a, is yes. Is there enough of a ‘greater good’ argument to outweigh the need for that preservation?

c) Is the matter too local to be considered by an international body? (E.g. whether nations should empty their rubbish bins in public areas once or twice a day)

d) Is the ‘greater good’ argument sufficient to warrant a sovereignty intrusion amongst all member states not just my own, keeping in mind the diversity of states in the NSUN?

I have found by asking these questions it has helped me define what I do and don’t feel comfortable with in regard to sovereignty. That said if a nation present enough of argument to change my view, I have in the past changed my mind and since I know that has happened I always ask nations to present an argument as to why I may be wrong.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I think it is important to remember when composing or voting on a resolution that there are a huge diversity of different cultures in the various nations, and resolutions that make sense for one culture might not make sense for another. (death penalty, some censorship laws, etc)

Also, not everyone on the globe is even human. Laws about sexual orientation might make no sense to a species of super-intelligent giant ants or robots.

If the resolution deals with universal issues, such as international diplomacy or basic person rights or certain environmental issues or interstate commerce, I'm fine with it. But if it seeks to enforce the cultural norms of most of the nations upon all the UN member nations, it infringes on soveriegnty.

Believe it or not, just because we join the UN doesn't mean we agree to give up soveriegnty. It is a perfectly legitimate argument to make. I want to take advantage of the benefits of the UN and make the world a better place, but I also do not want my nation to be micro-managed by bureaucrats who have never even visited my island. There's a balance.

Tough Nuts to you.

Reread the UN FAQ. You don't get a choice, your card is meaningless. The UN snaps its fingers, and your nation changes.

Much as I appreciate a good snappy reply to a post, you should probably know that this thread is intended as a useful reference point, not a debate over national sovereignty as it relates to game mechanics. You can start a new thread for that if you feel so inclined.

I'm not okay with U.N. involvement in domestic issues, whether they be social or economic, and will consistently pull out the national sovereignty card. Every time. Seriously.


What about domestic human rights issues? Many months ago it was argued that human rights (I know, the name itself implies "human") extend beyond borders. I'm thinking of Tactical Grace's resolution.

The reason I ask, is they are a grey area to my nation. We've voted in favour of some human rights issues, but others we've not supported.

What about domestic human rights issues? Many months ago it was argued that human rights (I know, the name itself implies "human") extend beyond borders. I'm thinking of Tactical Grace's resolution.

The reason I ask, is they are a grey area to my nation. We've voted in favour of some human rights issues, but others we've not supported.

Understood. Personally I count those as domestic issues, though I almost voted in favor of the biorights thing. (I ended up abstaining.) I count individuals (human or not) as citizens of their sovereign nations, not citizens of the international body of the United Nations, so I think the rights of those individuals are under the jurisdiction of the sovereign nations, not the U.N.

Whatever ones opinion on national sovereignity, by joining the UN you know you will give up some of it. So, one would assume that national sovereignity shouldn't be a big issue.

But there are limits. Not every country has to do things the same as in another country. For cultural reasons, for personal reasons, and ultimately because this would be rather boring if we were all the same middle of the road nation.

For my nation, the line I draw varies. If it fits into my ideology, to hell with national sovereignity because for me, not a lot will change and for the others, matters will improve.

The line is firmly drawn where issues come up that do nothing for international cooperation. With one exception, which I have stated in my region as well. Sometimes the NSUN should make a statement on "where we stand". What do we, as the UN, think of a certain issue. The recent marriage definition proposal is a good example. This is, basically, a national issue that the UN has nothing to do with. On the other hand, the NSUN could serve as a general moral institute, making a statement on, in this case, what marriage is or should be. This will go against probably several thousand nations who disagree with that statement, which leads to discussion, and that's a gain for a start, because it's a moment of reflection as well: why do we or don't we want this? And perhaps it is even good to sometimes say: this is how we should do it all over the UN, because it's good for people in general, despite what some nations might think.

National sovereignity will always end at international cooperation. In every category, proposals can be made that can enhance international trade, cooperation, living conditions, etc. What the proposer has to think is "Why should everyone do this?". The answer shouldn't just be "because I think it's best", because then it's a national issue.

A good proposal will also leave some room for national governments to do it their way. You can say, for example, that education should be free - but don't define exactly what this education should consist of. That will leave some room for nations to comply with this resolution in their own way.

It depends. On enviromental issues, there is no such thing as national sovereignty to me. It would be really nice if only the countries doing the polluting suffered enviromental degradation, but that's not how it works.

On social issues, it depends how forceful the resolution is. Very strong ones are a bit over the line for me, but less extreme ones I'm likely to support.

On human rights, it depends. Crime and punishment, I usually think of as a national issue, unless were talking about unusual barbarity.
However, genocide or something similar voids any national sovereignty argument, in my opinion.

Like anyone, I'm human and will probably be less scrutinous on resolutions that are in my interests than ones that go against them.

The Miko Mono Politburo first wishes to heartily applaude the Texan Hotrodders delegate for raising an issue we ourseleves feel has been a long time in coming.

The Miko Mono... (snip) ...We call on all likeminded U.N. members to work with us in our never-ending efforts to restrain and reign in the all too-often overreaching United Nations, and to stop the veiled efforts by a small select number of weak U.N. members to impose their national will on the rest of us.

UN Attaché for the Holy Empire of Dhulus, Viola Bronson, cheers in responce.

What about domestic human rights issues?
I don't believe in human rights. I don't think that there are any particular standards that you can point to and say, "Everyone gets these, no exceptions." There are always exceptions.

The poor woman who slowly starves herself to feed her kids. The guy by the side of the road who leaps into the floodwaters in a vain attempt to save a drowning motorist. The 9th-grader who quits school to bus tables to keep his orphaned siblings fed. The oppressed minority who stays behind to let his family get out. These are noble people, making noble attempts in the face of adversity or death. No government, no law, can provide for them at every turn. If a nation doesn't have the power to grant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all their citizens, I don't think they should guarantee that in the code of law.

The government lacks the power to give out "rights", but they can give out privileges. The privilege to vote, to attend school, to perhaps be fed and doctored and sheltered in the event of adversity. These are not rights - they are choices we make to drive back the tide of incivility. Many of us believe that every civilized person would make those same choices, but that is obviously and evidently not true. Look at abortion or the death penalty to see the tears in that fabric.

We make choices in what we and our nations consider vital, essential services, and we give up time, tax money, and labor to see that they get those things. Essential services mean different things in different nations. All of us are by definition computer users. We probably consider electricity to be an essential service, possibly that electrical service should be a right. To a goat herder in some godforsaken mountain pass, enough seed potatoes to make next year's harvest would probably be a bit higher on his list.

Every single thing that is considered a Human Right carries with it a cost of some sort. It's obvious on something like education or welfare or health care. It may not be as obvious on abortion or elections or gay rights. Cost isn't always measured in currency, but someone, somewhere has a value to place on each of these essential rights. It may be as simple as higher taxes, or as complicated as asking someone to forsake the smallest part of their religious heritage and beliefs. Which is more expensive, do you think?

Demanding that every member subscribe to those rights is most definitely an infringement on sovereignty, and that should always be part of the consideration. In the UN, the majority has the right to impose them, and for the most part Frisbeeteria is satisfied with their choices. Nonetheless, we recognize that not everyone will agree with us. Some of them may not be eloquent enough to make that clear, so we'll continue to look out for their interests as well as our own.

That's not altruism, by the way - it's simple fairness. Everyone deserves a voice. Freedom of thought is the ultimate human right, and that one is damn difficult to take away.

I do apologize for this breach of decorum, but...

To hell with you, Vastiva.

The UN is for international matters and it's interference with said matters should be minimal.( OOC: while the description does say "take over the world", there is a certain element called "roleplaying", which makes it unlikely that a lot of these proposals would never be passed...if other players were actually roleplaying).

Many of the proposals made should never be brought to the floor, as they can, in most cases, be decided on the national level.

The UN should be used for solving international disputes....and as a third party for different types of mediation. It should not become some globalized government that has total say in everything that happens world wide.

A third party is what we need for international disputes. Not some wide spanning international body that can globalize all issues because a majority of the governing body has no understanding of our nation's culture. To globalize all issues cause chaos...as the policies enacted by said government would alienate many nations...causing reprisals that would be uncontrollable.

(OOC: while this is JUST a game, it is an RPG, which means you have to be realistic. No one really wins, so don't try to. Just play the game in a realistic manner.)

Matthew Anderson
Representative of The Empire of Nostre Patrus

(OOC: Sorry...change "never" in the first real paragraph to "ever".

I do apologize for this breach of decorum, but...

A third party is what we need for international disputes. Not some wide spanning international body that can globalize all issues because a majority of the governing body has no understanding of our nation's culture. To globalize all issues cause chaos...as the policies enacted by said government would alienate many nations...causing reprisals that would be uncontrollable.


Actually I found much of what you wrote to be on topic for this discussion.

That said, I've always wondered about the relationship between the UN and NationStates. While the International Incidents forum encourages roleplaying, it for many players it is interesting, since the UN is the only sanctioned, even if voluntary, international organization that is integrated into the game itself ... many members join and want to steer the organization towards their ideal society.

I'm not saying that I agree with this, but I'm certainly guilty of putting forward legislation that my government feels would make the world "fair" and "safe".

It would certainly be much more interesting to see how the UN or another international organization would evolve in NationStates if there was a choice of international organizations that were in fact tied to the game engine.

What if instead of our only sanctioned tool being the UN, we also had a World Bank or perhaps a World Trade Commission? While I don't know the mechanics for doing this, I'm guessing that International Incidents already has roleplayed versions ...

(And should any mod come by, I'm not asking you to make this change. Your team has enough work as is. This is just me thinking out loud.)

Anyway, sovereignty and the UN have what I'd call a love / hate relationship. In theory I agree. If a world where nations feel like they could freely associate with different organizations, sovereignty in an international organization much as Nostre Patrus has described it probably does need to back off issues that could be easily handled domestically.

My Needle Sharing Prevention resolution certainly comes close to that mark. In fact, I think social justice / human rights / moral decency / the furtherment of democracy / gun control / gambling / recreational drug use / political stability tend to encourage that kind of thinking.

That said, I didn't mind the fact that we just finished debate on a long Nuclear Weapons topic even if we debated a very similar resolution (with a very similar vote outcome) 5 months ago. First, the mix of nations is new. Second, not everybody participated in the debate. Third, sometimes just talking about a topic is important, and can result in raising the domestic level of awareness / decision making that we engage in.

Did anybody else get the "Bombs" daily issue this week? I did, and I thought its timing with the resolution was great! :) I voted no on the issue and yes on the resolution ... I felt that was consistent for my nation.

In any event, I kinda believe that if in addition to the NS United Nations that there was a "Interstellar Alliance" for all the "Tech +" nations to join instead of the UN, that the course of laws there would be vastly different than what the UN gets. There could even be a "Tech -1" League of Nations, and another mutually exclusive "Tech -2" Court of Arthur Pendragon or something such, all to deal with different common rules. It would be interesting to see if given the choice of membership if different sorts of players go and take their international bodies in different directions.

And of course if there were competing international bodies for the same "tech" levels that too would be interesting to see if having to compete for members would promote a more hands-off approach.

As it stands now, the UN has a monopoly ... a franchise monopoly for public works econ folks! :) It is built into the game, and you'll hear people staying in the UN for other reasons, when if given the choice, they too might agree about sovereignty.

I feel like I stand on the line, crossing into both sides. It sounds like many of us do this. And I see the points behind both views.

I do hope NS2 offers some new rules, as I'd like to see how that dynamic changes.

Why?

I can't imagine why - for example - what age the people of my nation can have sex at is an international issue.

Having sex is a national issue. However if these young people travel, it becomes international. Same goes with drug use.

What my (broad, hasty) comment is in view of, is that ultimately everyone will interrelate with everyone, and the cultural standards will be tried in view of each other.

I do apologize for this breach of decorum, but...

To hell with you, Vastiva.

Neat! A player with passions. I salute you. :)



The UN is for international matters and it's interference with said matters should be minimal.( OOC: while the description does say "take over the world", there is a certain element called "roleplaying", which makes it unlikely that a lot of these proposals would never be passed...if other players were actually roleplaying).

Why? Ever seen some of the stuff that is actually made into law? One city redefined pi as 3 by law. Your head would spin if you saw half of this stuff.



Many of the proposals made should never be brought to the floor, as they can, in most cases, be decided on the national level.

Sure, but we're all gossips and noodges on some level.



The UN should be used for solving international disputes....and as a third party for different types of mediation. It should not become some globalized government that has total say in everything that happens world wide.

Unfortunately, the NSUN is what the NSUN is. Adaptation works better then squabbling.



A third party is what we need for international disputes. Not some wide spanning international body that can globalize all issues because a majority of the governing body has no understanding of our nation's culture. To globalize all issues cause chaos...as the policies enacted by said government would alienate many nations...causing reprisals that would be uncontrollable.

But of course.



(OOC: while this is JUST a game, it is an RPG, which means you have to be realistic. No one really wins, so don't try to. Just play the game in a realistic manner.)

Matthew Anderson
Representative of The Empire of Nostre Patrus

Are you stating I'm playing unrealistically? You should ask Mikivity about the spat he and I had over citizenship in my country vs the idea of taxing nations.

Having sex is a national issue. However if these young people travel, it becomes international. Same goes with drug use.

What my (broad, hasty) comment is in view of, is that ultimately everyone will interrelate with everyone, and the cultural standards will be tried in view of each other.

I don't agree. The age of consent in my nation is 14 (it is also the age of majority). But every person in my nation knows that if they go abroad they will be under the laws of another nation, and have to obey those laws. So if they go to a nation where the age of consent is 50, they know they won't be allowed to have sex with anyone below that age.

I admit there might be a problem if a married couple of 14 and 15 go abroad, but then there might be an arguement that the age of consent for both of them is still 14 and they aren't breaking the law.

And the same with drug use, and drinking alcohol. You are bound by the laws and customs of the country you are in, not the country of your birth. To assume that all the laws of all countries should be the same just so you can have a drink in a nation that has banned alcohol is somewhat arrogant (I am not suggesting this of you, before you are insulted - I am just commenting on the general) and would make every nation the same.

There are some issues that are truly national, and the UN should not deal with. But there are some issues that even though they seem national, are possibly international in scope.

Fris... that was great. What is the single greatest aspect of this game for me? That I am persuaded by the eloquence, passion and insight of others to actually think. To be kept on my toes where my values are concerned.

Sorry, I just felt that needed to be said.

In another frightening development, the Miko Mono Politburo wishes to note a proposal being discussed for the creation of a U.N. security force. We believe this only adds to our view that their are other, more duplicitious and imperialistic, motives behind many of the resolutions proposed and approved here.

We are a strong believer in the values of diplomacy and negotiation, and that is why were are a proud member of the United Nations. This body, however, should be used primarily to resolve disputes and conflicts that cross borders, such as peaceful resolution military conflicts, rare instances of genocide and some environmental concerns.

It is all well and good that many countries wish to debate and discuss various national-level policies and proposals. We are not too grandiose to think we may not learn from other countries. We draw the line, though, on having those same policies IMPOSED on us by a collective vote that we cannot hope to stand against.

As for the suggestion by some that one answer may be the creation of MORE international organizations, we can only ask when did MORE bureacracy ever solve anything?

In another frightening development, the Miko Mono Politburo wishes to note a proposal being discussed for the creation of a U.N. security force.
We get two or three of those a week. Aside from the fact that they never get past the 20% mark on approvals, they're also illegal. If a UN mod spots them, the posting nation usually gets a warning. If one of them ever approaches quorum, rest assured that the vigilant among us will alert the staff and have them pulled. No reason to be frightened.

As to the concept that there are nations that think government intervention can solve every problem and want the UN to become a world government in all but name ... well, duh! You can't convince some people that they are being idiots. Sometimes you just have to trust the democratic process to keep them in line.

The Miko Mono Politburo wishes to note the many resolutions, such as those concerning the "environment," that are overwhelmingly approved blindly in this body. Not only do they infringe on national soverignity by mandating national policies, they are often ahve a detrimental impact on our industrial and economic bases.

"Sometimes you just have to trust the democratic process to keep them in line." We cannot leave our national security to trust. Sadly, we are seeing more and more that this process is breaking down. Solutions to rein in the United Nations are badly needed, or maybe it is time the entire concept of collective security and negotiation be offered for debate.

"Sometimes you just have to trust the democratic process to keep them in line." We cannot leave our national security to trust.
Ah, but you can. You yourself are the reason we trust the process. We count on the outraged and put-upon to step in when the excesses surpass the levels of reason, just as you are doing now. You act as a counterbalance to opposing views, and should continue to post and protest frequently and voraciously. That's WHY the system works.

This body, however, should be used primarily to resolve disputes and conflicts that cross borders, such as peaceful resolution military conflicts, rare instances of genocide and some environmental concerns.


How would your government feel about a convention defining and condemning genocide?

How would your government feel about a convention defining and condemning genocide?
Well, there's a right way and quite a few wrong ways:
Ban on Genocide
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam Junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion, or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and females should be treated as equals, whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Approvals: 0

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 13 2004
This one showed up this morning, and is a lovely example of how not to write a proposal while looking like you know how to write a proposal. Notice that there is a conspicuous absence of anything related to genocide anywhere but in the title.

Personally I find the idea of "National Sovereignity" to be as artifical as the nations which spawned it. I fail to see why lines drawn on a piece of paper should define what is and isn't morally permissible. I also find it ironic that it is often precisely the kinds of nations that are very keen to dictate to their citizens how they should run their lives that are the most prone to react hostilely should any international body tell them how to run their domestic policy.

National sovereignity over domestic issues would be fine if it were true that citizens within nations were homogenous, but this isn't so. The fact is that modern nations are an artificial creation, the result of ancient battles, old colonial boundaries and backroom deals, not usually a declaration of shared ideals (or even if they were there's nothing to say that the current populous still share all the same ideals). This results in a sometimes conflicting mish-mash of people of differing races, religions and moral beliefs and national governments have no innate right to decree what is right for such a disparate body of people, even if they are democratically elected.

That's not to say that one can't argue that governments can decree what is right, just that if one does so there is no strong case for arguing that such decrees stop at lines drawn in the sand. If one rejects the notion of individuals deciding for themselves what is and is not correct behaviour, then, there is no reason why an international body can dictate on the basis of international consensus, rather than a national body on the basis of national consensus.

That being said, there should be a limit to the scope of international bodies like the UN, namely practicality. It's a fact of management that the larger a body becomes the less precisely it can react to local differences. This is why certain economic, environmental and defence issues should be weighed up carefully to make sure they don't decimate some parts of the world where the usual conditions don't apply. Of course, this argument applies just as strongly within nations, which is why de-centralisation is often a wise choice for larger nations.

So it's my opinion that while international bodies should be limited, to do so on the basis of national sovereignity, and the "right" of nations to decide on ethical issues, is bogus.

In response to the delegate from Mikitivity, which we look at warily remembering our past clashes in this forum, the Miko Mono Politburo would likely support a resolution condeming the abominable practice of genocide, as we explicitily stated we would.

As for the defining of the term, this would have to be done in a way as to not limit the military means of a country to defend itself from agression or infringment on its national interests.

In response to the delegate from Mikitivity, which we look at warily remembering our past clashes in this forum, the Miko Mono Politburo would likely support a resolution condeming the abominable practice of genocide, as we explicitily stated we would.

As for the defining of the term, this would have to be done in a way as to not limit the military means of a country to defend itself from agression or infringment on its national interests.

I realise we are gettining off the topic (or maybe there is no topic) but do you really mean what you wrote? That genocide is acceptable if the military is going to defend a nation?

I realise we are gettining off the topic
There is a topic (sovereignty) and yes, you're off it. Why not start a Genocide Draft topic?

There is a topic (sovereignty) and yes, you're off it. Why not start a Genocide Draft topic?

I will look through the history and see if there is anything remotely relatable, then maybe try writing one :}

All my comments in this thread will be OCC, just for future reference.

Personally, I feel a national sovereignty claim needs to be followed up by at least one other argument either on behalf of one's governmental policies role-played or by any number of real life situations that can be applied properly to the NS UN. All of us are affected by RL scenarios that form our judgments, condemnations, and political theories we throw around like hotcakes in the NS forums.

Thus, having said that, when claiming an issue is an infringement on national sovereignty, just saying that, IMHO, is not enough. It's a baseless argument and a waste of a post.

So, when I approach a topic that I believe to be an infringement, I will normally say so and follow up why I said so. Such an example can be found here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7450229&postcount=31). I've only recently started applying this policy, I'd say within the last three months or so, because I realized how pointless it was to argue policy without an argument. :p

National Sovereignty... it varies, for me.

If I believe something is a universal human right, then I support it in principle (whether I actually vote for it depends upon the specific proposal). I believe that human rights supercede national sovereignty.
My decisions on other proposals are bsed entirely on the proposal in question - if the author can justify the issue being raised in the UN, and I also agree with the proposal, then I will support it.

To my mind, I have only personally raised the national sovereignty argument once. That was in response to one misled proposal author who decided that not only are UN resolutions put into national law, they are inscribed into national constitutions. I regarded this as tantamount to losing control of government in Enn.

I also find it ironic that it is often precisely the kinds of nations that are very keen to dictate to their citizens how they should run their lives that are the most prone to react hostilely should any international body tell them how to run their domestic policy.

OOC: Sometimes, sometimes. Though there are some of us who just strongly believe in freedom. I consistently support freedom (my nation is an Anarchy/Civil Rights Lovefest depending on the day), and part of my supporting freedom is advocating for other nations (run by individuals behind computers) to have relative freedom in their activities.

Part of me is more practical and says that having the U.N. dictate policy to you excessively takes part of the fun out of the game, which is running your nation according to your ideals.

While realizing this is off the intended track of these discussions, the Miko Mono Politburo first wishes to reply to the delegate from TilEnca, les the rest of the international community think we are nothing more than a barbaric horde.

The Miko Mono Politburo, in connection with its sterling record on human rights, resoundly condems the practice of genocide and would gladly join an international peacekeeping force formed in the event such a disaster occured to limit its scope.

We do believe, however, that in some drastic cases a military policy of "scorched earth" can be justified and used. The Miko Mono Politburo believes that such a last-ditch defense could be decepitvely construed by an aggressor as genocide, and therefore subject us to international condemnation and punishment were genocide to be loosely defined in any future resolution.

As for the main topic of these talks, the Miko Mono Politburo is increasingly becoming concerned that the tone of debate is becoming a "love the U.N. or leave it" mentality. We have always supported and used the United Nations as a global deliberative body intended to help foster collective security and develop common solutions to TRULY global concerns. What we are asking for is a greater sense of moderation in the resolution process, leaving such measures only for those issues of a truly global scope and leaving the rest to be decided, as they should be, by national governments.

The Miko Mono Politburo cannot help but be suspicious that its calls for moderation and a reigining in of the resolution process -- a view shared by others -- has been met with cries to leave the United Nations as a whole. Would this body prefer that countries leave its auspices and choose isntead to resolve global problems and debate through economic and military warfare, rather than through prudent deliberation?

Let us be clear: the U.N. resolution process should only be used to address truly global issues that require common action. Countries that believe they are in a position to instruct us the rest of us as to how to conduct their affairs may choose to use this honored forum to convince us of the rightness of their positions -- the Miko Mono Politburo looks forward to such a debate -- but let the United Nations in these circumstances be used ONLY as a deliberative body and let the national governments, and their peoples, make the final decisions.

Let us be clear: the U.N. resolution process should only be used to address truly global issues that require common action.
No, let us be CRYSTAL clear: that is your interpretation of what the UN should be. It happens to be ours as well, but Frisbeeteria is aware that we don't always get our way ... and that shouting doesn't really help.

The UN will be what the UN members decide it will be. That's not open to opinion, it is hard-coded into the game. If a majority of members decide to turn it into a vast global government, then that is what it will become. The Miko Mono Politburo has made its views quite clear, as have any number of other nations. That's why we have this lovely process called voting, where each nation can pick a side.

As for the repeated statements to the effect "you can always leave", that's nothing more than a simple fact. UN membership is voluntary. Subjecting one's nation to the effects of resolutions comes with membership. If you don't like the effects, you can leave. Simple statements of fact, not a demand that you "love it or leave it".

You want to change it from within? Great. So do we. The way to do that is to encourage like-minded nations to join, to vote, to become active in the process. It won't happen by shouting down those who disagree with your position, or by creating yet another "The UN is too damn liberal" topic. It's been done literally hundreds of times in the past, with the same effect: zilch.

The UN is a democratic body. Create a grassroots support body, and work towards getting 50.00001% of the votes needed to promote your agenda. That's how democratic bodies work.

OK, feel free to shout me down, but might not a proposal, or a series of proposals, stating where the UN's remit begins and ends not be a good idea? It need not mean proposals outside the remit be discarded but it might help to stop the endless arguments regarding national sovereignity, namely by suggesting that those who oppose the status quo try to get a new proposal passed. I'm thinking of very clear, simple proposals, for example whether or not the UN's scope includes "human rights", environmental, defence, economic issues etc. A yes or no vote would make clear what the consensus was of current nations.

OK, feel free to shout me down, but might not a proposal, or a series of proposals, stating where the UN's remit begins and ends not be a good idea? It need not mean proposals outside the remit be discarded but it might help to stop the endless arguments regarding national sovereignity, namely by suggesting that those who oppose the status quo try to get a new proposal passed. I'm thinking of very clear, simple proposals, for example whether or not the UN's scope includes "human rights", environmental, defence, economic issues etc. A yes or no vote would make clear what the consensus was of current nations.

Actually the reality is many of us vote that way already. That is why resolutions with typos or that could be fixed a bit still slide through.

There are people who rarely see an idea they don't like (hand raised), and people who I affectionally like to think are ultra picky.

But a good way to do this would be in the forum. About once every month, run a poll and ask, "Do you support Environmental Proposals?"

I'll start one here in a few minutes, because I think you've raised a very good point. I'll play around with Moral Decency and its polar opposite Human Rights, since those and the Social Justice are the categories that I tend to find myself agreeing with both sides.

OOC: Sometimes, sometimes. Though there are some of us who just strongly believe in freedom. I consistently support freedom (my nation is an Anarchy/Civil Rights Lovefest depending on the day), and part of my supporting freedom is advocating for other nations (run by individuals behind computers) to have relative freedom in their activities. .

But here we have the paradox of freedom, what do you do about those who don't want to be free? Voting on a UN proposal on the basis of national sovereignity is in effect decreeing to others who may not agree that national freedom is paramount. You may argue you're just voting for your own nation, but if your vote scuppers the proposal...

Besides, what about those in your nation who want to sacrifice national sovereignity in the name of human rights etc.? By decreeing that national sovereignity is paramount you're imposing your beliefs on them.

Part of me is more practical and says that having the U.N. dictate policy to you excessively takes part of the fun out of the game, which is running your nation according to your ideals.

Yeah, but what about the fun of being of trying to make others do exactly what you want? It's the closest you can get to parenthood without nappy changes. ;)

... might not a proposal, or a series of proposals, stating where the UN's remit begins and ends not be a good idea? I'm thinking of very clear, simple proposals, for example whether or not the UN's scope includes "human rights", environmental, defence, economic issues etc.
No, for a simple reason. Those sorts of proposals have been declared illegal. You can't make a resolution resticting future resolutions. You can't make a resolution adding or subtracting proposal categories. Both are considered Game Mechanics violations and will be removed, and it's likely the author will also receive a warning or be ejected from the UN. Not shouting you down, just saying, "don't pull a dumbass move and get yourself ejected."

But here we have the paradox of freedom, what do you do about those who don't want to be free?

They have the freedom to not be free. That's no paradox.

Voting on a UN proposal on the basis of national sovereignity is in effect decreeing to others who may not agree that national freedom is paramount.

Your implication seems to be that in allowing people to be free I am imposing my will upon them. I find this...amusing...

You may argue you're just voting for your own nation, but if your vote scuppers the proposal...

What if it does? I've just left nations more free to make the choice between freedom and non-freedom, and to choose the degree to which they wish to practice either option.

Besides, what about those in your nation who want to sacrifice national sovereignity in the name of human rights etc.? By decreeing that national sovereignity is paramount you're imposing your beliefs on them.

Actually, the citizens of a nation are not themselves U.N. members (dude, it's "United Nations" not "United Sentient Beings"), and therefore do not have the power to sacrifice national sovereignty in the name of human rights. In this case, the only limitation on the people's freedom seems to be that they don't have sufficient power to enact their will on others. Of course, that's a structural limitation on freedom built into the game, not a limitation imposed by myself or the "government". You may as well say people are not free because they cannot breathe poisonous gasses, or because they are not omnipotent.

Yeah, but what about the fun of being of trying to make others do exactly what you want? It's the closest you can get to parenthood without nappy changes. ;)

I have no problem with that. That's just part of U.N. membership. That does not keep me from advocating for freedom, however, no more so than being an American voter keeps me from advocating for freedom. And it certainly does not mean I have to adopt the fatalistic, "love it or leave it" attitude of some others.

No, for a simple reason. Those sorts of proposals have been declared illegal. You can't make a resolution resticting future resolutions. You can't make a resolution adding or subtracting proposal categories. Both are considered Game Mechanics violations and will be removed, and it's likely the author will also receive a warning or be ejected from the UN. Not shouting you down, just saying, "don't pull a dumbass move and get yourself ejected."

Oh, I'm aware of this. I wasn't suggesting changing the rules of the UN, rather a declaration of intent, hence the "it need not mean proposals outside the remit be discarded" quote. It wasn't a proposal to say "any proposals outside this barrier are unnaceptable", rather it was a proposal to show a declaration of intent. A proposal along the lines of "we the nations of the UN agree that it is broadly acceptable for the UN to legislate on human rights measures." Just so that the "national sovereignity" argument comes up less often. What this means is that you're free to put forward a proposal that disagrees with the "national sovereignity" proposals (ie proposing something that goes beyond the accepted limits, or repeals something within the accepted limits) but be prepared to face arguments that this goes against common consensus. It would just be a clarifying measure, that's all. Mikitivity's idea of a poll would do the job just as well, as long as we could guarantee it would be widely voted on/read (sticky it, maybe?).

Actually, the citizens of a nation are not themselves U.N. members (dude, it's "United Nations" not "United Sentient Beings"),


Actually I still say since all this talk of aliens and elves and zombies comes up ... we should force the moderators to either change the name to "Interstellar Alliance" or ask them to allow that old Zombie proposal to hit the floor. ;)

[I'm only half joking. Half the time the UN is clearly set on Earth, as per Moderation rulings on resolutions. The other half, it is being pushed into the realm of fanstasy and science fiction ... looking at how we openly draft resolutions to take into account more than two genders etc.]

... we should force the moderators to allow that old Zombie proposal to hit the floor.
The only thing that stopped the Zombie proposal from hitting the General Assembly was its inability to garner enough approvals. The UN decides for itself what it considers important. The proposal was legal, as I recall.


(I would have enjoyed that battle and that vote. It was much more fun than the Hippo bills)

The only thing that stopped the Zombie proposal from hitting the General Assembly was its inability to garner enough approvals. The UN decides for itself what it considers important. The proposal was legal, as I recall.


(I would have enjoyed that battle and that vote. It was much more fun than the Hippo bills)

I disagree on two counts.

First the Unfree People clearly ruled it illegal. If you look at the debate again, some long-time and knowledgable UN members seemed to agree that it was a "joke" resolution.

I think the proposal would have been deleted by a moderator or two, and a single warning issued. I also think that a few of us would have argued that it was appropriate (you, Komo, and myself at least stated at the time that it was fun and should stand its time in the queue).

Second, there are enough nazi, goth, magic, and fantasy based regions out there that they (combined with the Goontopians who were active at the time) would have made it possible (not easy) for a group of nations to gather 135 endorsements. Would the then resolution have failed? You bet.

Most players are stuck on Earth ... I'd go as far as to say they are stuck in North America when it comes to their world view.

But I do agree that the debate would have been perhaps one of the most interesting in this forum's history. :)

That said, if anybody wanted to first talk the moderation team into allowing a serious proposal dealing with undead rights, I would actually campaign for it ... just to see it reach the UN floor. I might vote against it of course, since the Mikitivity Necromancy Assemblage maintains that the undead have no rights and belong only to those with the power to use them as their arcane art merits.

(And yes, I'd advise that if you care about the left over shell of your body, do not plan on dying in the shadow of Mt. Delenn. Miervatians love their cemetaries and love to cram dead tourists in them too, it means more tombstones. But part of the reason our crime rate is so high is the Necromancers keep stealing all those bodies! We honestly don't know where all those bodies end up, but we suspect they are waiting under Mt. Delenn.)