NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassador,

The United Nations Association -- Mikitivity would like to conduct a survey to feel out the NS UN forum’s interest in various UN resolution categories. These results will be archived and shared with UN members and non-members in order to facilitate better proposal writing. This first survey focuses just on Human Rights, which is to date the most popular UN resolution category.

Since national opinions are subject to change, this survey is limited and will be conducted again at a future date.

As your schedule permits, please respond to the poll included with this survey. These responses are general, but comments (in the form of a post) are most welcomed and will be reviewed and shared along side the poll results.

Background
(taken from the official UN description of Human Rights and Moral Decency resolutions):


Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


A printer friendly copy of all UN Human Rights resolutions (passed and failed) is available at the UNA archive:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/HumanRights.pdf

{edit: Here is a chronological list of the 32 Human Rights resolutions, including the resolutions that failed or were deleted:


End Slavery
Sexual Freedom
Keep the World Disease-Free!
Stop Privacy Intrusion
Gay Rights
Child Labor
Religious Tolerance
Fair Trial
The Child Protection Act
The Universal Bill of Rights
Free Education
The IRCO
Common Sense Act II
Woflish Convention on POW
No Embargoes on Medicine
Freedom of Humor
End Barbaric Punishments
Increased Access to Medicine
Internet Advertising Pop-ups
Legalise Euthanasia
Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill
Legalize Prostitution
Children in War
Universal Freedom of Choice
UN Educational Committee
Bio Rights Declaration
Abortion Rights
Female Genital Mutilation
Freedom of Press
Ban of Death Penalty
Ban Trafficking in Persons
Habeas Corpus
}





The question:

How likely are you to support a Human Rights Resolution?


Very likely (I vote yes for most UN Human Rights resolutions).
Likely (I vote yes for about half of the UN Human Rights resolutions).
Not likely (I vote for yes in less than half of the UN Human Rights resolutions).
Not at all.


Thank you,
Janet Van Dyne
Chairwoman, United Nations Association -- Mikitivity

Just out of curiousity, is there a reason why this poll is only one day long? It might be more beneficial to get a larger response if you waited maybe a few days or even one week...

For the record, there have been a total of 32 Human Rights resolutions brought before the UN. Two of these resolutions failed. The other 30 passed.

I counted my votes (including how I would have voted had I been a member of the UN) and found that my government would have cast its vote in favour of 22 resolutions. Of the 10 it did not vote for, it feels rewrites would have been appropriate and that the ideas were in fact valid for the UN.

Also, the count totals on the UNA Human Rights Summary Table are off by one. There were only 12, not 13 "Strong" Human Rights resolutions that were adopted. I'll edit the pdf this afternoon and upload the new version along with formatting for "repeals".

Thanks for all who've answered thus far!

I chose the fourth option "Not at all." For those of who are bored enough to wonder why, click here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7441379&postcount=17).

I have to admit, I'm kind of torn on this sort of resolution. While my automatic reaction is to vote for human rights resolutions, I also try to respect nation's rights to choose their own political and social systems. The way I see it, all human rights resolutions would be international in scope, as there are humans in every country. I would tend to draw the line if a resolution infringed on a countries right to choose their social structure. For example; if the NSUN tried to pass a resolution forcing every country to provide free abortions for all, I would vote against it.

It is clear that I am a little confused as to where I stand. However, I would be very interested to see where other nations draw the line.

The Collective Peoples of
The Experimental Democracy of Grand Teton

I chose the fourth option "Not at all." For those of who are bored enough to wonder why, click here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7441379&postcount=17).

Thats quite interesting, as I consider people as citizens of the UN/world/galaxy/whatever, who just happen to live in my nation. But there you go.

The Collective Peoples of
The Experimental Democracy of Grand Teton

It is clear that I am a little confused as to where I stand. However, I would be very interested to see where other nations draw the line.


There is little reason to expect a significant change in the near future in the quality and subject matter of NS UN resolutions ... it could happen, but I doubt it.

That said, I simply counted out my vote on prior resolutions.

The official voting records for some NS UN members can be found at:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6773835

The CCSM voting records:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6773835&postcount=6

The records are incomplete. I found a few of the resolutions missing from my government's list, and I also noticed that the order was off on a few. But seeing that generally that sort of thing is really useful to just myself and my allies, it has a lower priority on my "documentation" to-do-list.

Anyway, I encourage you to look at what others have said. Also the UNA Human Rights list does contain all 32 Human Rights resolutions (that I know of). Check out "Janet's" link and read her file. I'm guessing that it should be very easy to see if you are >50%, ~50%, <50%, or 0%.

All are valid responses! :) But next time I can add a "I don't know" option, if you feel that would help the poll.

Yes. There is a forum bug. I typed in 30 days.

Ah, okay. I wasn't aware of such a bug, but good to know for future reference.

Perhaps, posters can post their results here, too, once the poll "closes" to be tallied, I'd encourage it in the very least.

I don't really like this poll...the options should be whether or not you'd vote on Human Rights Resolutions, not only if you'd vote yes. I vote on all of them, but if it's not a Resolution I'd support- Human Rights or otherwise- I'm not going to vote yes on it.

I don't really like this poll...the options should be whether or not you'd vote on Human Rights Resolutions, not only if you'd vote yes. I vote on all of them, but if it's not a Resolution I'd support- Human Rights or otherwise- I'm not going to vote yes on it.

I don't think taking a poll of people "Do you vote" is going to answer the question, "Do you support the UN's take on Human Rights".

Take another example: Gun Control.

"Do you vote on resolutions that restrict gun ownwership?"

"Yes"

Does that imply you support gun control measures or feel they should be lessened?

If the question is rephrased:
"Do you vote in favour of resolutions that restrict gun ownership?"

That does a better job at answering the question.

I think it is a no brainer that people vote on resolutions. We have good records of that. In fact, I can tell you that the number of votes cast on resolutions in the past 6 months hovers between 19,000 and 14,500 votes. This number also changes based on the resolutions themselves and timing of the vote.

But I totally agree that an option for "I don't know" really should have been added in the poll, but at the time I wanted to force the issue a bit. If 99% of the answers were "I don't know", we are know very little more than we did before ... other than the fact that nations are very open to the content of the resolution and opinions of others ... and even that may be a big stretch.

I voted "Likely", because I wouldn't vote "yes" to every U.N. Human Rights Resolution if I didn't agree with a particular Resolution. However, I believe the poll should examine whether or not the U.N. should be active in Human Rights initiatives or if it should leave it to the member nations, as that is what I believe is what the point of the poll is.

The PRoGG doesn't really look at the category of a proposal, but to
1) whether it's formatted and phrased correctly
2) whether we like the idea behind the proposal

As Human Rights are high on our agenda, we tend to support Human Rights proposals, because we feel it's important for people all over the world to have a basic set of rights that they can rely on, that they can call upon if those aren't respected by the authorities.

I tend not to pay attention to the classification of the proposal when I first review it. I mostly read the content, and see if that is something I find acceptable.

Sometimes I look at the classification, but only if the text of the proposal is something I can approve of.

But mostly I would support human rights resolutions as the UN is here to protect the people, not the governments. (At least in my view)

However, I believe the poll should examine whether or not the U.N. should be active in Human Rights initiatives or if it should leave it to the member nations, as that is what I believe is what the point of the poll is.

Two questions:

1) Isn't a Human Rights resolution an attempt on the part of the UN to be active in Human Rights issues?

2) What do you feel is a better way to gage this besides looking at all of the Human Rights actions and making a statement on these prior actions?


The reason I ask the second question, is in general it has been suggested that polls based on future decisions are less reliable than polls based on a recently made decision.

For example, a "fictional" country called America has an election. Polls are conducted prior to the election and tend to show one trend. Exit polls conducted during the election show a slightly different trend.

Now both polls could be wrong, but I ultimately feel that our actual decisions can be a good guide to our future decisions.

2) What do you feel is a better way to gage this besides looking at all of the Human Rights actions and making a statement on these prior actions?

I believe it is beneficial to have a poll regarding Human Rights Resolutions (HRR's), I'm just not sure if the option should be "will you vote 'yes'?" to them. The current poll suggests that one would almost blindingly vote for every HRR regardless of if it was any good, meaning that those who pick option one would hypothetically vote for a HRR authorizing genocide simply becuase it is a HRR. The better question- and one that several United Nations memeber nations debate over- is whether or not the UN should have an active or passive role with regards to Human Rights (i.e. should the UN resolve the abortion debate or should the UN simply say "no more genocides"?). Yes, it's easy to say "I'll vote for every HRR that comes around" but if every HRR from here on in is very oppressive to humans then it sounds silly to say that you'd vote for every HRR.

Generally, I will only approve and vote affirmitavely to HRR's that are logical, well thought out, and consistent...

Factors include:
1. Is it actually Human Rights
2. Does this adversely effect the right of another in the process, and if so, to what degree.
3. Is it equitably ballanced to those not covered into the specific catagory or group to which it is being applied.
4. It is universal, or speciated.

OK, I had a brain fart earlier:

"This poll will close on 11-12-2004 at 10:37 AM"

I was reminded by the Most Glorious Hack that this is a British convention, meaning the poll will close on Dec. 11, 2004 at 10:37 AM PST.

With that in mind, I'm going to soon start the polls on the other categories, unless others beat me to them. However, if you feel that the questions could be better phrased (RomeW's comments for instance), I'd appreciate seeing the exact question you feel is better. The goal is to get useful information.

Thanks!

Format suggestion:

The following are Social Justice resolutions: Res 1 Res 2 ... etc.As a general rule, do/did your nation support Poll option: All of them Poll option: 75% to 100% of them Poll option: 50% to 75% of them Poll option: 25% to 50% of them Poll option: 0% to 25% of them Poll option: None of them Poll option: other

Ok, now I've thought about it. I've decided that what human rights proposals come down to is choice, and this is what I base my vote on. Most proposals I have gripes with restrict other peoples rights, whilst trying to improve the original peoples rights. For example, if a proposal came through trying to ban smoking, I'd go against it because it stops people from choosing to smoke. At the same time, I'd approve a ban on smoking in public places: you're right to smoke is infringing on my right not to have to breathe your smoke.

To be honest, I'm just writing this for myself, and trying to form a coherent philosophy.

To be honest, I'm just writing this for myself, and trying to form a coherent philosophy.

Actually I felt your smoking example was very illustrative, and I'm guessing some other nation may find this useful.

Ok, now I've thought about it. I've decided that what human rights proposals come down to is choice, and this is what I base my vote on. Most proposals I have gripes with restrict other peoples rights, whilst trying to improve the original peoples rights. For example, if a proposal came through trying to ban smoking, I'd go against it because it stops people from choosing to smoke. At the same time, I'd approve a ban on smoking in public places: you're right to smoke is infringing on my right not to have to breathe your smoke.

To be honest, I'm just writing this for myself, and trying to form a coherent philosophy.

Yep, that's about it... Resolutions which specifically target increasing group A's rights at the penalty of group B's, is not Human Rights... and as such I do not vote for them... to me, they must be universal in nature... (rights to all, not some)

Yep, that's about it... Resolutions which specifically target increasing group A's rights at the penalty of group B's, is not Human Rights... and as such I do not vote for them... to me, they must be universal in nature... (rights to all, not some)

I have some sympathy with this view, but there is one thing you are overlooking.

The case of the smoking ban is a good example, but there is one problem with it. The people who smoke CHOSE to do so. However those who do not smoke generally don't chose to have the smoke forced upon them.

Another example would be playing loud music at 2am. It can be said that people have the right to freedom of enjoyment. So passing a resolution to stop people playing loud music at 2 in the morning could be infringing on their right to freedom of expression.
But their next door neighbours also have a right not to have the music thrust upon them that late.

And I would say that since the people who are playing the music are chosing to do so, and the neighbours get no choice about the music being played, the resolution should defend them more than the people who play the music.

All resolutions - even the ones outside of human rights - give rights to some and take them from others. And generally it goes (or should go) that the rights are given to those who aren't making the choice, but having the choice thrust upon them.

So even if Human Rights Resolutions take rights from some people they are still generally applying human rights.

What you are describing is not human rights; it would be public (or moral) decency... And as such categorizing them as "Human rights" is invalid... (Another pet peeve I have)...

Generally, I will only approve and vote affirmitavely to HRR's that are logical, well thought out, and consistent..

Under normal circumstances I would say, who would vote for anything else?

Who wants to vote for something not logical, not well thought out, and inconsistent.

Then I read the Passed UN resolotions thread.

Under normal circumstances I would say, who would vote for anything else?

Who wants to vote for something not logical, not well thought out, and inconsistent.

Then I read the Passed UN resolotions thread.

Exactly, a cursory perusal of the NSUN Resolutions lists is definitive proof that pure democracy is a failure (if history had not already taught you that).

There is an excellent post on the fine line between Human Rights and Moral Decency resolutions in the thread titled "Survey: Do you support UN Moral Decency Resolution?" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7466969) In particular this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7466969&postcount=11) shows that sometimes resolutions might be misclassified.

I'd encourage any nation interested in these discussions to also follow the Moral Decency discussions since Human Rights and Moral Decency resolutions are in fact designed to represent opposite ends of the same spectrum and effectively the same thing (except for their game stats are different) -- they deal with civil freedoms.

Under normal circumstances I would say, who would vote for anything else?

Who wants to vote for something not logical, not well thought out, and inconsistent.

Then I read the Passed UN resolotions thread.

Quite. While I have a greater tendency to support the principles Human Rights resolutions espouse than perhaps any other category (and I think this is a fairly widespread view, and one in accordance with the proper role of the UN), the very popularity of Human Rights issues makes them particularly vulnerable to ill-thought-out, sentiment-laden, potentially dangerous non-arguments that succeed. With copious rewording, I'd support almost all HR resolutions; as-is, it's probably under half.

I've noticed that a large number of comments on the current resolution seem to be opposed to it.

I'm curious what sort of opinion all nations have with respect to just plain and simple Human Rights.

I've answered this recently, and liked my answer enough to repost it here.

From Drawing the "national sovereignty" line... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7444245&postcount=21)
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.

UN Human Rights resolutions are a very sticky subject for my nation in particular and for my region in general. Therefore I believe that less than half of them are approved by my office.

1. The resolution must clearly define and deal with the identified problem.
2. The identified problem must be globally prevalent.
3. The resolved solution must not interfer too greatly with the national laws. (Forcing all UN nations to accept gay marriages is one thing. Demanding that all hate crimes be prosecuted as capital offenses is another).

I ask the questions regarding "The greater good" and "the Big picture" when I look at resolutions attempting to resolve human rights issues. I am especially careful not to approve a resolution which will significantly impact another religion. Yes, significant is subjective, but isnt it all. Recognizing gay marriages versus... a resolution calling for Catholic churces to allow their priests to marry (to eliminate or greatly reduce pedophilia) would be an example.

Goddess, Im feeling old. Anyone remember the two vague little resolutions I mentioned here besides the one about gay marriages? The very fact that I do makes me feel even older.

I have to admit, I'm kind of torn on this sort of resolution. While my automatic reaction is to vote for human rights resolutions, I also try to respect nation's rights to choose their own political and social systems. The way I see it, all human rights resolutions would be international in scope, as there are humans in every country. I would tend to draw the line if a resolution infringed on a countries right to choose their social structure. For example; if the NSUN tried to pass a resolution forcing every country to provide free abortions for all, I would vote against it.

It is clear that I am a little confused as to where I stand. However, I would be very interested to see where other nations draw the line.

The Collective Peoples of
The Experimental Democracy of Grand Teton

Grand Teton has it exactly correct. worded as tho if you vote against it, you are against certain rights and not for others.

so a tribe found in the forests of Tanakeir living in the stone age should be given the same rights as the people who developed and built my great nation, pssshhooot!!

inequality is what gives life a bit o' spice to live. all equal?!?! UN going a bit too far on this one. the bum living on the street is equal to hehe, ME?!?! another ploy by the United Nothings masked by a human rights argument to make you feel guilty to vote against it.
.

Lord Delandou

so a tribe found in the forests of Tanakeir living in the stone age should be given the same rights as the people who developed and built my great nation, pssshhooot!!


Please don't take what I am about to say as directed at your nation, or your good self. I do not wish to cause offence, and would be mortified to learn I had done so, especially to someone I have not spoken with before (at least as far as I recall).

Take GeminiLand - they are what most people would call advanced. They have pretty good weapons, TVs, huge factories and a good standard of living. They have caused a fair amount of pollution and killed a lot of people in wars.

Then take VirgoLand - they are what most people would call backwards. They live in caves, have very little in the way of modern tech and almost no weapons. But by their standards they have a good stanard of living. And they have never done anything to pollute the atmosphere, make war or kill people from other nations.

So who would you say is more deserving of human rights?

Though it is impossible to gauge how likely an individual nation will vote on a given resolution without knowing more about that society, the historical voting records of the UN can be very interesting if you look at the "ensemble" (or collective) behavior.

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/votingsupport.gif

The United Nations Association has updated its previous voting support image, and I wanted to post a copy of the figure here to point out that although Human Rights resolutions represent the most highly supported resolutions in UN voting history, they also represent some of the lowest.

The interesting thing about Human Rights resolutions is that there are so many of them, which may mean that the sample size of data is in fact relevant.

By responding to this or the other UNA polls, your nation will be helping the UNA better understand the decisions of UN members and can look forward to future graphs and white papers on NationStates UN behavior.

[I'll be releasing more info on the UNO -- United Nations Organizations, in Dec. I had an invision technical problem. I can't seem to get any banner image load, and I created a cool *.gif with the flags / emblems of several of the UN created committees.]

This poll will close tomorrow. Again, I'd like to thank everybody who has responded.

Unfortunately the format of this poll is slightly different than the other two, otherwise I could have presented all three in a similar fashion ... I'll dream something up this weekend.