NationStates Jolt Archive

I wrote this some time ago, and it certainly seems to be the topic of the day, since Frisbeeteria started a thread on the subject. If you have any helpful comments, they would welcome. I've already run this by several of the regular posters in the UN forum on another forum, but some people don't seem to look at that forum anymore. coughFriscough But I digress...


National Sovereignty
and the
NationStates United Nations


I have been here for some time now, and have noticed that national sovereignty is a topic that is oft-debated and hotly contested here in the United Nations forum. Many arguments get thrown around and it can often seem like there are as many arguments on the issue as there are people debating it. However, I have identified several common threads in these arguments, and think it would be useful to compile them in one handy guide to national sovereignty discussions. Hopefully, someone will actually read this guide before going on at length about how terrible the United Nations is for violating their national sovereignty, and thereby save us all some time. There is no one absolutely correct argument that I know of, so keep this in mind in your future discussions on the issue. You may have simply agree to disagree with other posters and leave the issue of national sovereignty alone.

Common Mistakes

Here are some of the more common mistakes that are made in national sovereignty discussions.

RL UN=NS UN

Occasionally the UN forum gets treated to a diatribe on how the RL (real-life) United Nations works. Usually such diatribes are immediately followed by arguments that the NationStates United Nations should work the same way as the RL United Nations. Sometimes the persons will even cite the RL United Nations Charter, or use other RL United Nations resources to back up their claims. Unfortunately for such persons, NationStates is a role-playing game, and does not recognize RL resources except as aids to debate (whether over appropriate role-play conventions or ethical and legal concerns).

Power of the NationStates United Nations

Far too often persons will enter the UN forum and argue that the NationStates United Nations does not have the power to enact the legislation that has been passed. As it happens, the NationStates United Nations actually does have that power. If you are a member of the United Nations during the period in which the resolution is coded, then the national statistics for your nation are changed according to the nature of the resolution. This is built into the very structure of the game, and there is nothing that can be done about it. However, if you are not a member of the United Nations during the time period in which the resolution is coded, your national statistics are not changed. Even so, you are expected to act as if your nation is in compliance with the legislation for the purposes of role-play. One can role-play defiance of the legislation, but be prepared to do a proper job of it or be accused of wanking (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank) or godmoding (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Godmoding) (follow the links for explanations on wanking and godmoding), and possibly derided and ignored altogether. One fairly common and widely accepted method of roleplaying defiance of resolutions is to take advantage of the often ambiguous and/or undefined nature of the resolutions and define certain key terms such that the effects of the resolution are nullified or made negligible.



Arguments Related to National Sovereignty

Debates over the appropriate scope of national sovereignty take many forms. Some are related to the IC (In-Character) aspects of NationStates and others are related to the OOC (Out-Of-Character) aspects of the game. Often terms such as domestic and international are used to indicate different types of policy, legislation, or law. Most arguments support a particular degree to which national sovereignty should be upheld or not upheld, but some persons will hold to multiple arguments (or versions thereof) so it can become difficult to pinpoint a person’s position on the issue. There are other arguments than those which are listed below, but I have only included the more commonly used arguments.

Daily Issues Argument

One of the more common OOC arguments for national sovereignty (limited or extensive) is that having the NationStates United Nations legislate in certain areas is redundant because there are already daily issues that allow the nations to make legislation on that issue. Many proponents of this argument have also said that such redundancy takes the fun out of the game, which is deciding how to run your own nation.

Legalistic Argument

The Legalistic Argument is a fairly common method of dealing with national sovereignty issues. Proponents of this argument hold that there are two types of legislation; domestic and international. The general thrust of this argument is that because “it’s the United Nations, not United Sentient Beings” (to quote myself), the United Nations is a body that is international in its scope, and international only. Persons taking this position usually believe that unless the NationStates United Nations is legislating directly on an international issue, it is violating the scope of its legal authority.

International Justification Argument

This is one of the most popular arguments that is used to justify the NationStates United Nations legislating on what others might consider a domestic issue. Proponents of this argument will generally state that the NationStates United Nations is well within its rights to legislate on domestic issues if there is an international justification for doing so. For example, outlawing abortion in one nation would probably lead to women immigrating or emigrating (depending on your perspective) to other nations in order to have abortions. Thus many proponents of this argument would say that because the domestic law is extremely likely to have international consequences, it is within the scope of the NationStates United Nations to set international law that will address this issue.

Fatalistic Argument

A common OOC argument for the sovereignty of the NationStates United Nations is that due to the nature of game mechanics, it already by its very nature violates national sovereignty. Essentially, persons using this argument often suggest that because of the nature of the NationStates United Nations, you give up all national sovereignty upon joining the United Nations, and therefore it is useless to try to assert the sovereignty of your nation if you are a member.


Validity of the National Sovereignty Argument

Frisbeeteria, the author of the Rights and Duties of UN States Resolution, has done an excellent examination of the relationship between national sovereignty the NationStates United Nations, which can be found here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381983) I am reposting it here with some format changes, as it includes an analysis of national sovereignty as it relates to international law and game structures, rather than the mostly descriptive methods that I have employed. All of the text you read after this point was written by Frisbeeteria.

It has become fashionable once again to discard or belittle arguments of national sovereignty as somehow unworthy of notice. "Yet another UN member who hasn't read the FAQ" seems to be a common slap in the face of new posters. Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

Does the UN have the power to override National Sovereignty?
Yes. Unquestionably. The FAQ makes that abundantly clear.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass.

Does the UN have the right to override National Sovereignty?
Yes and no. Matters of international importance and consequence are rightfully the province of the UN. Who makes the determination of what is or isn't a matter of international importance? The UN Ambassadors of the UN member nations choose that among themselves.

There is no grand scheme by which the UN can rightfully do anything at all, unless the membership grants the organization that right. It is the duty of UN member nations to send a representative who is capable of presenting his or her own national interests, while at the same time considering the validity and effect of those interests on other members of the international community. These members must consider and decide whether the proposal or resolution in question should qualify as the rightful property of the UN. If so, they should present their case. If not, they should vehemently oppose it. National interest MUST be given weight in any ambassador's decision.

Does the UN have the duty to override National Sovereignty?
In cases of international importance that transcend national boundaries, perhaps. Some would include most Human Rights proposals into this category. Others might consider Environmental or Free Trade as paramount. There is no single criterion that any given nation is required to follow in determining their duty to the UN, and Ambassadors should not be chastised for failure to share common values. With more than 37,000 UN member nations, it is absurd to think that every one will agree on any given issue, much less the phrasing and language of its presentation. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the UN have the obligation to override National Sovereignty?
Absolutely not. The UN can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the member nations. The UN also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

On what legal basis can the UN override National Sovereignty?
Rights and Duties of UN States ( http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48) provides the legal precedent for sovereignty in Articles 1-3, while at the same time recognizing the legitimate claims of the UN in Articles 2, 3 and 11. In many ways, this is a restatement of the core [OOC] rules of the game, while providing a critical justification for doing so.

In passing this resolution, the UN has explicitly recognized the concept of National Sovereignty. Thus, under international law, national sovereignty arguments are legal and permissible as legitimate in any argument. As previously stated, those arguments do not in and of themselves provide justification for the passage of a resolution or a repeal, as the UN always retains the power to decide for itself what it worthy of consideration.


Conclusion
On this basis, I maintain that it is [i]legally incorrect to dismiss all such arguments as groundless. The usage of the language, as in all UN discussions, is vital. One must consider the context as well of the content when using or deriding words like right, power, duty, and obligation. Perhaps a bit of guidance towards the correct word or phrase would serve the UN community better than abrupt dismissal of the claim.

Other UN forum???

In any event, this probably could have been merged into Frisbeeteria's thread. But I would like to reply to this comment:

Far too often persons will enter the UN forum and argue that the NationStates United Nations does not have the power to enact the legislation that has been passed. As it happens, the NationStates United Nations actually does have that power. If you are a member of the United Nations during the period in which the resolution is coded, then the national statistics for your nation are changed according to the nature of the resolution.

I believe that the NS UN resolutions are all suggestions. Nobody has to right to really tell us *exactly* how we run our nations, to do so would be no different than a resolution mandating specific forum activity, but instead of making a mandate on forum activity, it would be requiring certain / specific roleplayed responses.

In the real UN (yes, I'm aware of your opinion on NS UN vs. RL UN) and other international bodies, the decisions made are at best very influencial statements. At worst they are window dressing (the Universal Bill of Human Rights qualifies here, since every nation that signed the Bill has violated many of its provisions ... and some countries like the US frequently violate the Bill, not because they are "evil" or "wrong", but when you are dealing with a very generalized set of ideals and applying them to a population of millions, if not billions, there will be exceptions to the rules).

That is why Sophista's resolution guide format is IMHO underused (and probably not understood). The key words he suggested help proposal authors create future resolutions that "Suggest" or "Recommend" actions.

The impacts aren't the same for all nations. The mods have said this many times. When a "Strong" resolution is adopted, it will move all nations in the direction of that resolution, but a "Mild" or "Significant" resolution will move extremists more than it will move centrists. (I'd have to dig out Cog's old posts.)

Anyway, this suggests to me "game proof" that the resolutions themselves are not being applied as rules in the spirits of "You will all kneel before ZOD!", but are ideals. Nations that are already close to those ideals are less changed by a weak suggestion than nations that are a bit further off.

For example, if a Furtherment of Democracy resolution were to reach the floor with a "Mild" strength, the resolution would only increase the political freedoms in nations with higher political freedoms a small bit. But a nation that is outlawed would move a bit more (relative to the others). At least this is how Cog once explained it. Not having the ability to run multiple UN nations, I've never really been able to test these theories by having "Control" subjects -- I can really only play with the daily issues (and I do that just with my own nation -- I've picked some crazy issues just to see what will happen). :)

Now if a Strong FD resolution were to hit, everybody would push up more, even the centrist and democratic nations.

A similar story could be told for Political Stability / Free Trade / Human Rights / Moral Decency / Social Justice resolutions. I'm a bit less certain on the "secondary" category specific things like Rec. Drugs or International Security.

Anyway I could be wrong about the game impacts, but *if* I'm right, then there is a strong case that UN resolutions are suggestions, which our nations follow because of "international pressure" and "domestic pressure" to adhere to them. In any event, I encourage nations to come up with their own domestic responses to UN resolutions.

When Needle Sharing passed and a few nations contacted me via other forums to say, "Congrats, but my nation does not need these programs, because instead we ...", my reply was. Thank you for your support, and I am the first to acknolwedge that no resolution or solution will work for all and appreciate your telling me you liked my idea but that it wasn't 100% ideal for you. To my surprise I was often told, "Don't worry, even if it doesn't apply, we liked the idea enough to vote for it still."

Wow! :)

My point is two-fold: (1) players don't always explain everything, but there are many players that ARE actively thinking about what is best for their nation and weighing that in with their decision making, (2) if you are already in a "good" spot, a resolution isn't going to bring you down ... and if you consider UN resolutions strongly worded ideals, you'll have a much less stressful time in the UN.

Sorry, Tex - didn't intend to steal your thunder.

You're welcome to incorporate any or all of my text (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381983) into your post. I'd use it to replace or enhance your "Power of the NationStates United Nations" section.

I'll look over the rest of it later and see if I can offer other suggestions.

Other UN forum???

It's a forum you were once a member of.

I believe that the NS UN resolutions are all suggestions. Nobody has to right to really tell us *exactly* how we run our nations, to do so would be no different than a resolution mandating specific forum activity, but instead of making a mandate on forum activity, it would be requiring certain / specific roleplayed responses.

That's a very interesting belief.

In the real UN (yes, I'm aware of your opinion on NS UN vs. RL UN) and other international bodies, the decisions made are at best very influencial statements.

You are aware of my opinion on NSUN v. RL UN? Are you aware that I would love it if the NSUN was more like the RL UN in terms of national sovereignty? Unfortunately, IMO, that is not the case.

At worst they are window dressing (the Universal Bill of Human Rights qualifies here, since every nation that signed the Bill has violated many of its provisions ... and some countries like the US frequently violate the Bill, not because they are "evil" or "wrong", but when you are dealing with a very generalized set of ideals and applying them to a population of millions, if not billions, there will be exceptions to the rules).

That is why Sophista's resolution guide format is IMHO underused (and probably not understood). The key words he suggested help proposal authors create future resolutions that "Suggest" or "Recommend" actions.

The impacts aren't the same for all nations. The mods have said this many times. When a "Strong" resolution is adopted, it will move all nations in the direction of that resolution, but a "Mild" or "Significant" resolution will move extremists more than it will move centrists. (I'd have to dig out Cog's old posts.)

Anyway, this suggests to me "game proof" that the resolutions themselves are not being applied as rules in the spirits of "You will all kneel before ZOD!", but are ideals. Nations that are already close to those ideals are less changed by a weak suggestion than nations that are a bit further off.

For example, if a Furtherment of Democracy resolution were to reach the floor with a "Mild" strength, the resolution would only increase the political freedoms in nations with higher political freedoms a small bit. But a nation that is outlawed would move a bit more (relative to the others). At least this is how Cog once explained it. Not having the ability to run multiple UN nations, I've never really been able to test these theories by having "Control" subjects -- I can really only play with the daily issues (and I do that just with my own nation -- I've picked some crazy issues just to see what will happen). :)

Now if a Strong FD resolution were to hit, everybody would push up more, even the centrist and democratic nations.

A similar story could be told for Political Stability / Free Trade / Human Rights / Moral Decency / Social Justice resolutions. I'm a bit less certain on the "secondary" category specific things like Rec. Drugs or International Security.

Anyway I could be wrong about the game impacts, but *if* I'm right, then there is a strong case that UN resolutions are suggestions, which our nations follow because of "international pressure" and "domestic pressure" to adhere to them. In any event, I encourage nations to come up with their own domestic responses to UN resolutions.

When Needle Sharing passed and a few nations contacted me via other forums to say, "Congrats, but my nation does not need these programs, because instead we ...", my reply was. Thank you for your support, and I am the first to acknolwedge that no resolution or solution will work for all and appreciate your telling me you liked my idea but that it wasn't 100% ideal for you. To my surprise I was often told, "Don't worry, even if it doesn't apply, we liked the idea enough to vote for it still."

Wow! :)

My point is two-fold: (1) players don't always explain everything, but there are many players that ARE actively thinking about what is best for their nation and weighing that in with their decision making, (2) if you are already in a "good" spot, a resolution isn't going to bring you down ... and if you consider UN resolutions strongly worded ideals, you'll have a much less stressful time in the UN.

That is quite interesting, and I enjoyed reading it, but I don't quite see how it is relevant. :confused:

“it’s the United Nations, not United Sentient Beings”

I like that, I'm going to have to remember it.

I believe that the NS UN resolutions are all suggestions. Nobody has to right to really tell us *exactly* how we run our nations, to do so would be no different than a resolution mandating specific forum activity, but instead of making a mandate on forum activity, it would be requiring certain / specific roleplayed responses.

When you get right down to it, I think that's really all they ever can be. Pick any paritcular resolution, and I'm sure you could find a dozen people who could tell you a perfectly legal way for the government to 'get around it'. Especially considering that many of the resolutions passed are not exactly drafted in airtight legal writing (which is sometimes intentional, sometimes not). Since all the UN can do is ensure that your countries legislation is in accordance with all it's existing resolutions, some players take full advantage of this and others don't. This means every resolution passed will have an effect on your country, but it still isn't the literal word of God.

Sorry, Tex - didn't intend to steal your thunder.

You're welcome to incorporate any or all of my text (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381983) into your post. I'd use it to replace or enhance your "Power of the NationStates United Nations" section.

I'll look over the rest of it later and see if I can offer other suggestions.

Don't worry about it, Fris. Que sera, sera.

I was actually thinking of adding your text earlier, and probably will sometime tomorrow or this weekend.

Good work on this, Texan. Glad to see you finally posted it.

Good work on this, Texan. Glad to see you finally posted it.

Thank you! Live long and prosper. :)

It's a forum you were once a member of.

Is it still an invite only forum?



You are aware of my opinion on NSUN v. RL UN? Are you aware that I would love it if the NSUN was more like the RL UN in terms of national sovereignty? Unfortunately, IMO, that is not the case.


You posted that NS UN isn't the RL UN (which is true), and you've made it crystal clear to me that your nation would love for national sovereignty to be better respected by NS UN decisions. :) But I still think there are elements of the game that should aspire to be more like the RL UN.

The difference IMHO between our opinions isn't on what "should" be, but more on if the game itself is capable of this. I think if we dismiss too many discussions about the RL UN, that we play to those that like the "When the UN says squeel like a pig, I expect you to drop and squeel!" when they point to the FAQ.

I also think that while the FAQ is pretty good, that it is obvious that Max wrote it to be fun too.


That is quite interesting, and I enjoyed reading it, but I don't quite see how it is relevant. :confused:

I was hoping to point out that the game mechanics might in fact support the opinion (that is all it is) that UN resolutions aren't really one-sized fits all rules. Just an opinion, but one that I think might sometimes take a back seat to the idea that UN resolutions are in fact word-for-word amendments to domestic laws (which many might consider anti-sovereignty). :)

Is it still an invite only forum?

Yes.

You posted that NS UN isn't the RL UN (which is true), and you've made it crystal clear to me that your nation would love for national sovereignty to be better respected by NS UN decisions. :) But I still think there are elements of the game that should aspire to be more like the RL UN.

So do I, Mik. Alas, it will never be. :(

The difference IMHO between our opinions isn't on what "should" be, but more on if the game itself is capable of this. I think if we dismiss too many discussions about the RL UN, that we play to those that like the "When the UN says squeel like a pig, I expect you to drop and squeel!" when they point to the FAQ.

I would agree that our opinions on what "should" be, are very close, though perhaps not exactly the same.

Unfortunately, this is a largely roleplayed game, and it is expected that you and I will squeel, or find some creative RPed method of getting around it. If we don't actively squeel on the forums, it is still assumed that we are doing so. Even Sophista's defiance of the UN was met with a great deal of disapproval, and he is greatly respected and admired here.

Actually, I probably will add to the post above that nations can roleplay defining their terms such that the UN resolution is nullified. That was a good point that you brought up.

I also think that while the FAQ is pretty good, that it is obvious that Max wrote it to be fun too.

You noticed that too? :D Max has a wicked sense of humor in the FAQ, sometimes. :)

I was hoping to point out that the game mechanics might in fact support the opinion (that is all it is) that UN resolutions aren't really one-sized fits all rules. Just an opinion, but one that I think might sometimes take a back seat to the idea that UN resolutions are in fact word-for-word amendments to domestic laws (which many might consider anti-sovereignty). :)

Who would consider that anti-sovereignty? Surely it is not I? ;)

In all seriousness, I do respect your opinion, and will give it further consideration.

Bump because I fixed it up, and want to see what people think.