NationStates Jolt Archive

With increasing frequency, U.N. members are proposing and blindly accepting resolutions that only infringe on the national soverignity of member states, but also at the cost to our national security and economic bases.

As the most latest example, the People's Republic of Miko Mono wishes to point to debates occuring now in the United Nations concerning the mandating of changes to individual country's penal codes, moral standards and civil structures.

We respect the United Nations, and are proud to be a member and work with all for the common good. The Miko Mono Politburo STRONGLY believes, however, that this august body is being turned into a type of "macro government" by a small group of countries adapt at the shadow worlds of diplomacy and parliamentary maneuevering. These countries, in the guise of working for the common good, would seek to accomplish through legislative fiat what they can not do through military action -- imposing their ways of lives on the rest of us and weakening our abilities to resist, and even function, as soverign states.

Therefore, the Miko Mono Politburo must call on other like-minded U.N. members who value their independence to work with us to roll back the growing encroachment of the United Nations. What we propose is a set of repeal resolutions to override a number of the more dubious proposals that have been recently passed.

We welcome all offers of moral support, aid in choosing what resolution to target for repeal, aid in preparing repeal resolutions, and votes when they come up. It may even be neccessary for like-minded nations to form a regional bloc to amplify our strength in the United Nations.

From what we have already seen and heard, the People's Republic of Miko Mono does not believe it will have to fight alone in this struggle. We hope other proud, strong and indepedent nations will rally to our call and work with us to return the United Nations to the proud insturment of collective security it once was.

You'll note that the vast majority of players just arn't even in the UN. If you arn't in the UN, they can't legislate themselves into control of your country.

http://www.wineandfoodassociates.com/quixote.jpg

Can I fetch you a fresh lance, Señor Quixote?

Can I fetch you a fresh lance, Señor Quixote?
Didn't we ban them?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The Miko Mono Politburo has decided to target the following burdensome U.N. resolution for our initial repeal efforts:

1. Good Samaritan Laws (Resolution #76, Category: Moral Decency, Strength: Mild).

2. Sustainable Energy Sources (Resolution #71, Category: Environmental).

3. Banning whaling

4. The Sexes Rights Law

5. Illegal Logging

We welcome reccomendations from other like-minded U.N. members as to onerous resolutions worthy of repeal.

4. The Sexes Rights Law

Okay now its personal. ;)

Care to tell me what you didn't like about it. It could be important for when I start campaigning for the sister proposal this weekend.

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

The Miko Mono Politburo has decided to target the following burdensome U.N. resolution for our initial repeal efforts:

Others infringe on sovereignty just as much. Do you only have a problem with the ones you don't agree with?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The Miko Mono Politburo has decided to target the following burdensome U.N. resolution for our initial repeal efforts:

1. Good Samaritan Laws (Resolution #76, Category: Moral Decency, Strength: Mild).


Whats so bad about this one? As far as I am concerned, it deals with international aid.

In reply to the delegate from the Black New World, the Miko Mono Politburo believes the Sexes Right law should be repealed because its places too much of an undue burden on countries' national frameworks in the "nebulous" name of equality. Issues such as wage controls are best to lift to a nation's economic ministers depending on what is good for the country as a whole and its economic situation.

We believe the goals of the resolution, along with many like it, shoudl be accomplished by building a broad national consensus WITHIN countries, rather than having a mandate for forced equality imposed from above, which will only serve to inflame the population.

As for the delegate from Grand Teton, we believe the Good Samaritan resolution should be repealed because of the undue restriction its places on liability. Countries seeking to damage antoher could send agents in throguh the guise of "aid workers" to conduct sabotage missions. Also, a country could unwittingly hire through subcontractors terrorists and suberversive who would also carry out sabotage activities while pretending to be aid workers. Under this resolution and the liability protection it supplies, the targeted country would have no opportunity to file a lawsuit for damages.

As for the delegate from Grand Teton, we believe the Good Samaritan resolution should be repealed because of the undue restriction its places on liability. Countries seeking to damage antoher could send agents in throguh the guise of "aid workers" to conduct sabotage missions. Also, a country could unwittingly hire through subcontractors terrorists and suberversive who would also carry out sabotage activities while pretending to be aid workers. Under this resolution and the liability protection it supplies, the targeted country would have no opportunity to file a lawsuit for damages.

I think the actual resolution text will answer your above complaints.

Your first charge is "undue restriction its places on liability":

The resolution specifically said:


3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

The resolution doesn't place a direct restriction on liability. It calls upon governments to make domestic laws, but it does not design these laws. The reason it specifically used the word domestic laws, is even global problems take on vastly different faces at local and domestic levels, and local governments can find the optimal solutions or laws.

This type of language is actually what some nations have termed as being "sovereignty friendly", and believe it or not, but the resolution was attacked and voted against by nations who claimed that this clause did not give the UN enough restriction on liability.

The resolution then continued:


4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

You've claimed the national liability laws will be too restrictive. Now aside from the fact that the resolution only called for laws, it did do so with a real restriction ... that the laws it called for should limit the immunity (i.e. in other words that the laws should not be too restrictive of civil liability laws) to cases only related to where emergency workers are rendering aid.


Now let's look at your other charges:

You claim countries will seek to damage others by sending in spies and the like, when you said, "Countries seeking to damage antoher could send agents in throguh the guise of "aid workers" to conduct sabotage missions."

I was aware of that argument, and thus the resolution included this clause:

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;


If you are really worried about spies and sabotours, don't ask for aid from sources you don't trust.


OK, let's look at your next charge, "a country could unwittingly hire through subcontractors terrorists and suberversive who would also carry out sabotage activities while pretending to be aid workers."

The solution is again in clause 1. If you are really worried about terrorists sneaking in, don't bring in international contractors. Responsibility is your responsibility, not somebody else's.

But I added another protection in too ... because I knew the "easy" card to play against the resolution -- the evil sneaky terrorist:


2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

Guess what? You can pick and choose who comes in your country to help and who doesn't. If you think there might be a terrorist, screen out the usual suspects. Because the last thing any nation offering aid to another nation is for an international incident.

And your final charge, "the liability protection it supplies, the targeted country would have no opportunity to file a lawsuit for damages".

Here again, clause 3 and 4 work together. Basically as I've pointed out above the domestic laws you make can be anything you want. I designed that loophole in the law for "national sovereignty" banner wavers to play around with.

Have fun. Make laws that undermine this resolution ... because let me explain who the resolution is supposed to protect and help. The friendly nations that offer aid.

Your liability laws might be good, or you might ignore the resolution (which is what mild resolutions are about) and develop something that really is not very consistent with these goals ... but the rest of the world and the UN compliance ministry will be following your nation and will make note of its laws.

If a series of four hurricanes (like in Florida) or a terrorist attack (like in New York) or a volcanic erruption (similar to the Phillipines or Washington or Japan) or a massive earthquake (Iran frequently gets these) or forest fires (which ravage California every few years) means that your nation puts out a call for help, the individuals that volunteer from other countries are still citizens of other countries. Their countries need to protect them just as your government needs to help its own people by asking for aid. If my government feels that your liability laws are a legal nightmare, we are actually going to warn Mikitivity citizens before coming near your country that we have no influence in Miko Mono. It isn't going to help your citizens, but it sure might save my citizens from a wrongful law suit or imprisonment.

The point of the laws is to streamline the legal process and make it easier for two nations to work together.

Anyways, if you want to really attack resolutions that don't provide sovereignty loop holes, look towards the euthanasia, prostitution, child pornography, child labour, and other human rights related resolutions. Many of them don't include language to grant nations the right to tailor UN resolutions and international law in a way that fits their special needs. I think many of those resolutions passed because of the ideal and not the language. But until you've advocated for a Moral Decency resolution, let me tell you that swimming with two 10 kg weights tied to your legs is not an easy task. Human rights resolutions are easy to pass ... and few are written in a way to respect sovereignty.

I'm a bit disappointed that after all of the work that many nations put into making the Good Samaritan Laws an international resolution and one of the most sovereignty friendly ones that it is being called one of the least sovereignty friendly resolutions. Because the cold hard truth is, we designed this thing with an international scope and loop-holes to prevent it from angering the people.

The Miko Mono Politburo has decided to target the following burdensome U.N. resolution for our initial repeal efforts:

1. Good Samaritan Laws (Resolution #76, Category: Moral Decency, Strength: Mild).

2. Sustainable Energy Sources (Resolution #71, Category: Environmental).

3. Banning whaling

4. The Sexes Rights Law

5. Illegal Logging

We welcome reccomendations from other like-minded U.N. members as to onerous resolutions worthy of repeal.

1) Good Samaritan Laws.
Disasters happen in nature - earthquakes, tornadoes and so forth. Sometimes a nation can't deal with the problem itself, so it needs help. And if people are giving up their time and effort, and risking their lives, to help a nation in need, they do not deserved to be sued for it.
Did you read the whole proposal? It CLEARLY states that you are permitted to refuse entry to anyone you don't want help from. If you think it is a terrorist group, just tell them they can't come. If you think they are going to sabotage your nation, then tell them they can't come. If they still come they are in violation of the resolution, and you can punish them as such.

2) Sustainable Energy Sources
What happens to the envorinment affects everybody - not just the nation it happens in. If you polute the air in your nation it is very unlikely that the poluted air will stay in your nation. It will spread round the world affecting other nations. Thus I think this does belong in the jurisdiction of the UN.

3) Ban Whaling.
At a guess whales do not understand the concept of terratorial waters. Which means that anyone who hunts them is probably hunting in international waters. Which quite obviously makes this the purview of the UN to legislate on, as it affects every nation to some extent.

4) Sexes Rights Law
This is by far and away one of the most important resolutions in passed. To state that no one can be discriminated against on grounds of gender, and that gender can be decided by the person, rather than the state, is a fairly strong statement of values by the UN and the people who voted for it. By repealing this you would be setting back the cause of equality to the dark ages.

5) Illegal Logging
Again - environmental proposals - ones that take the view that the world belongs to everybody, not just the nation that is currently inhabbiting it - should be dealt with in the international forum such as the UN.

I can't imagine why anyone would repeal these resolutions, unless that person were planning to rape the environment and oceans, and start a regime of discrimination that boggles the imagination.

My fellow members here make excellent points regarding the reasons why the resolutions proposed by the honourable from Miko Mono for repeal, is not acceptable. Certainly I understand their opinions or rather frustrations with regard to their sovereignty. However, in the interest of clarity, perhaps they would be so kind as to explain to the members here, why these particular resolutions is such an affront to their sovereignty?

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

Might I add that every issue can be confronted from a national perspective and it's pointeless to argue against every issue for this reason alone. If you truly feel it's a national issue, not an international issue, then, there will be more than one reason behind that reasoning that you can logically argue against a given resolution more reasonably.

Also, an interesting debate is taking place here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372178) that might be of interest to you all if you aren't already participating in it.