NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal was drafted for two reasons:
1) An issue brought up concerning my previous proposal addressed fears at having one resolution circumvent another, and
2) The "Rights of Women and Minorities" Resolution has made it so that none of my citizens, or myself, have to abide by any other UN Resolution, considering the fact that our cultures/religions are treated equally with any other. Even the contradictory ones.

Anyway, "Resolution for Resolution". Here it reads:

WHEREAS United Nations resolutions are meant to be constructive, not counterproductive.

WHEREAS this has not always been the case.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in case of resolution contradictions, the following measures be applied to reach resolution:

ARTICLE I
In the event of the existence of contradictory UN resolutions, all efforts shall be made to abide by both. This includes taking interpretations of a resolution that cannot be justified by it but are also not specifically negated, so as to make it correspond with a different resolution.

ARTICLE II
In the event of the existence of nonresolvable contradictory UN resolutions, such as when one resolution specifically negates the existence of another, to the extent that the two cannot coexist, then the resolution passed first shall be the one abided by.

ARTICLE III
In cases where only part of a resolution is specifically contradictory to an earlier resolution, only the contradictory portion shall be superceded. The remainder of the resolution is to be abided by to the best of nations' abilities.

ARTICLE IV
In cases where a resolution is self-contradictory, nations are free to determine which portion of the resolution is to be abided by and which portion is to be superceded, unless one of these self-contradictory portions is also contradictory with previous UN resolutions, in which case the previous articles apply.

ARTICLE V
No UN resolution can be indirectly repealed through a new resolution.

I took some flak earlier for trying to run this as a "Free Trade" proposal. While it is true that this cannot in any sense be considered free trade, I am not at all embarrassed for submitting it as such. "Free Trade" was the closest thing I could find to international understanding. In all fairness, these are the options we have to work with . . .

Environmental: A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Human Rights: A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Social Justice: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Free Trade: A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
The Furtherment of Democracy: A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
International Security: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Gambling: A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.
Military Disarmament: A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Recreational Drug Use: A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.
Moral Decency: A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Political Stability: A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Gun Control: A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

. . . whereas this proposal would require something along the lines of: "Clarification: A resolution to remove confusion" or "International Cooperation: A resolution to make the UN more workable as a body", or something along those lines.

Right now I am running it as a "Significant increase in Political Stability", even though it does not really have anything to do with restricting political freedoms but only helps make current restrictions/powers feasible. If the proposal is deleted AGAIN for inappropriateness, then I shall not run it again.

So. I don't THINK this is controversial or bad. Am I mistaken? Should it not be enacted? :confused:

There is already a topic, despite it being somewhat inflammatory, on this. Go here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376510

Well, it's a topic criticising (among others) my previous attempt on it as a "Free Trade" proposal, and quite rightly criticising it. The moderators (or whatever they are called) have deleted it for having nothing to do with free trade, as they had every right to.

So I resubmitted it as "Political Stability", which it also has nothing to do with, but which comes CLOSEST to describing it. If it gets deleted once more, I shall not try again.

But, in the meantime, are there any criticisms? Any reason not to support it? Because, as I said, there are some recent resolutions which simply cannot exist, no matter how hard we try, and there is always potential for more to be voted in even if the contradictory ones (::coughcoughWomenMinorityRightscough:: ) are repealed.

I'd have gone with "furtherment of Democracy", but that's me.

As to the proposal itself... meh.

And if you would explain this part:


2) The "Rights of Women and Minorities" Resolution has made it so that none of my citizens, or myself, have to abide by any other UN Resolution, considering the fact that our cultures/religions are treated equally with any other. Even the contradictory ones.


It says all are treated equal, not "you don't have to obey the UN". As in "You all EQUALLY must obey the UN".

I don't see the problem.

It says all are treated equal, not "you don't have to obey the UN". As in "You all EQUALLY must obey the UN".

I don't see the problem.

I'd be happy to illustrate it. ::takes out two sockpuppets::

Grandmaster Steve: Bleh! I am High Priest of the Order of Violet! I am going to sacrifice that fellow over there to my gods.

Officer Sven: Excuse me, Grandmaster, but that fellow's rights are protected by a vast number of UN Resolutions. You cannot kill him.

Grandmaster Steve: I beg to differ, Officer, for the UN Resolution "Rights of Minorities and Women" says that my religion is equal to any other, and you allow any other religion to operate under their beliefs.

Officer Sven: But, Grandmaster, their beliefs do not interfere with others' basic human rights.

Grandmaster Steve: My religion does not believe in protecting human rights. Am I wrong?

Officer Sven: According to the UN, yes. But, also according to the UN, no, because no one is really wrong or inferior. You just can't exercise your practices.

Grandmaster Steve: Without our practices, my religion CANNOT EXIST!

Officer Sven: Then I guess it just won't. We cannot condone it or support it, and, furthermore, we will fight it to the best of our abilities. But it's still equal to everything else.

::puts away sockpuppets::

:takes the two sock puppets, tosses them in a room, tosses in a live grenade after them, and smiles at the destruction:

So you're going to create a proposal that doesn't really solve it, but brings up questions of creating and passing a resolution that contradicts a previous one 100% instead of repealing it?

I'd be happy to illustrate it. ::takes out two sockpuppets::


Grandmaster Steve: Bleh! I am High Priest of the Order of Violet! I am going to sacrifice that fellow over there to my gods.

Officer Sven: Excuse me, Grandmaster, but that fellow's rights are protected by a vast number of UN Resolutions. You cannot kill him.

Grandmaster Steve: I beg to differ, Officer, for the UN Resolution "Rights of Minorities and Women" says that my religion is equal to any other, and you allow any other religion to operate under their beliefs.

Officer Sven: But, Grandmaster, their beliefs do not interfere with others' basic human rights.

Grandmaster Steve: My religion does not believe in protecting human rights. Am I wrong?

Officer Sven: According to the UN, yes. But, also according to the UN, no, because no one is really wrong or inferior. You just can't exercise your practices.

Grandmaster Steve: Without our practices, my religion CANNOT EXIST!

Officer Sven: Then I guess it just won't. We cannot condone it or support it, and, furthermore, we will fight it to the best of our abilities. But it's still equal to everything else.

::puts away sockpuppets::


You did read the Resolution, right?

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


Which means no religion gets preferential treatment. You can allow all of them to commit human sacrifice, or none of them, insofar as this resolution is concerned.

And who gets sacrificed, in view of the Gay Rights resolution, particularly:


hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

Also, from the Universal Bill of Rights:

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

And from Universal Freedom of Choice


5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,


So you can't pass a law saying "involuntary sacrifices aren't murder" as that is decreasing the rights of one person for another - discrimination, unequal treatment, cruel and inhuman treatment. You can pass a law saying "choosing to be sacrificed will remove a charge of murder". But that is up to you.

:takes the two sock puppets, tosses them in a room, tosses in a live grenade after them, and smiles at the destruction:

::frowns:: Those were my best socks.

So you're going to create a proposal that doesn't really solve it, but brings up questions of creating and passing a resolution that contradicts a previous one 100% instead of repealing it?

Well, the aim is to solve already-brought-up questions, not create new ones. Even if the resolution is repealed, others could spring up in its place. Others that contradict previous resolutions more than 25% or 50%.
---------------
ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.




Which means no religion gets preferential treatment. You can allow all of them to commit human sacrifice, or none of them, insofar as this resolution is concerned.

Which means the human-sacrificing religion is not better than the relief-team religion, and the enslave-people religion is more wrong than the don't-enslave-people religion. But that's my last statement here on that Resolution, as it is discussed elsewhere.