NationStates Jolt Archive

HOLDING that the decision to place economic sanctions on a given state is a decision to be made by national governments and not the United Nations;

REGARDING the use of the United Nations as an instrument to place economic sanctions on a given state as inappropriate and beneath the dignity of the United Nations, which should be a tool of international cooperation, not a tool to advance the interests of one member state over any other;

NOTING that the application of economic sanctions by the United Nations has never produced the desired effect, and has often had dire consequences for innocent civilians;

WE ARE RESOLVED that the United Nations should not be empowered to place economic sanctions on any state, United Nations member or otherwise.

This resolution is about to expire. I will resubmit it if there is any interest.

what sanctions do you talking about?
if you mean the proposals that limited the free market, you can't make propsal that aplly to you ignore proposals.
if you mean to take from the UN the power to make sanctions, that could be subject to debate.
but I can't see why take from the UN the option to punish war criminals states and others. the UN is here to make the world better in there isn't better way for that, than punish the bads and grant the goods.
your propsal can't past the number of regional delegates, and it really unneccesery.

The proposal would stop the UN from placing sanctions on another state, just as previous resolutions have stopped the UN from collecting tax from member states. Just because the UN doesn't presently place sanctions doesn't make the proposal irrelevant - the precedent of the resolution forbidding UN taxation demonstrates this.

The problem with the idea that UN trade sanctions can be used effectively to punish rogue governments is that they have never worked that way. In real life, such sanctions result in untold suffering for the populations of such states, who are largely innocent, and have actually assisted the regimes they intend to punish, by giving those regimes an external enemy to point to when looking for someone to blame.

Would you really like a powerful alliance of a few regional delegates to be able to effectively stop all UN member nations from trading with your state? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't. My proposal is intended to stop such abuses of the UN process as well as address the deficiencies in real-life UN sanctions.

Yes, I will want the UN could put sanctions on state of crime.
In the real world the racist goverment of south africa, fall by economical UN sanctions.
Terror states as Sirya and Iran afraid to move because the sanctions of the UN.
also, I think that UN without power is like police who can't punish criminal. thy're useless.
in the real world WW2 start because the UN can't stop Hitler with his lack of power.
if you take from the UN the option of economical sanctions, you had to replace that by UN army who could solve problems by force (and prohibid by the UN, because he had no effect on the states stats).

the UN sanctions system (that didn't exist yet) will be there to protect innocent states.
Green Israel is safe, what with your state?

Yes, I will want the UN could put sanctions on state of crime.
But what the UN really does when it places sanctions on such states is punish their innocent population and gives the criminal regime in place somebody to point the finger at.

In the real world the racist goverment of south africa, fall by economical UN sanctions.
Terror states as Sirya and Iran afraid to move because the sanctions of the UN.
And Saddam Hussein had sanctions placed on him for a decade or so, and did that put an end to his government? It just inflicted all sorts of hardships on the Iraqi people.

also, I think that UN without power is like police who can't punish criminal. thy're useless.
in the real world WW2 start because the UN can't stop Hitler with his lack of power.
That's a massive over-simplification. For one, the UN didn't exist; the League of Nations was a total joke and shouldn't be regarded as the UN. There are any number of things which had a good deal more to do with the start of WW2 than the League of Nations and its total lack of teeth.
if you take from the UN the option of economical sanctions, you had to replace that by UN army who could solve problems by force (and prohibid by the UN, because he had no effect on the states stats).

the UN sanctions system (that didn't exist yet) will be there to protect innocent states.
Green Israel is safe, what with your state?
Well, let's talk about the other options open to the United Nations. Sanctions are not appropriate in my opinion because they are indiscriminate. They can cause alot more suffering than people might think - it sounds non-violent to place sanctions on a country, but think seriously. If you are stopping a country from importing goods, it can't bring in food or medical supplies. If it can't provide enough food and medical supplies by itself for its people, then the innocent civilians will go without. Sanctions aren't effective at bringing rogue regimes down, nor are they as clean and casualty free as many people think.

Green Israel is safe not because the UN has the power to place sanctions on anybody, but because for whatever reason, nobody wants to attack it, or nobody is able to attack it. Saying that Green Israel is safe and using that as justification for UN sanctions is like saying that because there are no bears eating me as I type this post, the bear repellant I bought at the corner store is keeping me safe.

UN sanctions aren't effective, and are indiscriminate in their effects. Let's do away with them and think about alternate methods for the UN to intervene.

Real world aside, I can't make my mind up as to the legality of the proposal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What do you mean the legality of the proposal? If you have specific concerns and could help me fix them for the resubmit, I'd be most appreciative. :)

Well the UN can't specifically target a nation anyway.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It can; it just hasn't. But even if it couldn't, it could declare sanctions against categories of nations, even against all non-UN nations.

This is a proposal to limit the powers of the UN, much like the resolution about UN taxation. I believe that that resolution sets the precedent for resolutions which limit the powers of the UN in this manner.

It can; it just hasn't. But even if it couldn't, it could declare sanctions against categories of nations, even against all non-UN nations.No, it can't. If a mod sees any proposals that target specific nations they get deleted.

But what the UN really does when it places sanctions on such states is punish their innocent population and gives the criminal regime in place somebody to point the finger at.
that is just like say that punish criminals will punish their families, too. the fact somebody could be harm can't justified ban of sanctions on criminals.
And Saddam Hussein had sanctions placed on him for a decade or so, and did that put an end to his government? It just inflicted all sorts of hardships on the Iraqi people.the Iraqi people suffered because of the crimes of their goverment. any leadership get their power from the people and the people could drop their goverment. as such, they responsiable to their state acts.
if the people can't do that, the UN had to help them get freedom by sanctions, or make the state leave the UN, and loose the world wide benefits.
That's a massive over-simplification. For one, the UN didn't exist; the League of Nations was a total joke and shouldn't be regarded as the UN. There are any number of things which had a good deal more to do with the start of WW2 than the League of Nations and its total lack of teeth.
the league of nations could do more if they could make sanctions on germany. but nothing happen until Hitler conquered Poland.
still, this isn't Important because we arn't talking on the real world.
Well, let's talk about the other options open to the United Nations. Sanctions are not appropriate in my opinion because they are indiscriminate. They can cause alot more suffering than people might think - it sounds non-violent to place sanctions on a country, but think seriously. If you are stopping a country from importing goods, it can't bring in food or medical supplies. If it can't provide enough food and medical supplies by itself for its people, then the innocent civilians will go without. Sanctions aren't effective at bringing rogue regimes down, nor are they as clean and casualty free as many people think.as I said, right could be exist only if you aren't take basic right from another person.
I know that sanctions aren't the best solution (and they had to use only in drastic situations), but unless you find me better solution (despite just ban sanctions), I can't agree with you.
and again, if some state decide to make jenocide and/or war crimes and passed on 2 important UN proposal, I want the UN will go all the way and crush them down.
Green Israel is safe not because the UN has the power to place sanctions on anybody, but because for whatever reason, nobody wants to attack it, or nobody is able to attack it. Saying that Green Israel is safe and using that as justification for UN sanctions is like saying that because there are no bears eating me as I type this post, the bear repellant I bought at the corner store is keeping me safe.Green Israel is safe thanks to the UN who prohibid from other states to conquered other states.
if the UN will had no power all the proposals he had will became meaningless, and other countries will be able to attack me.
I don't want the UN will became "league of nations 2". I can't vote for proposal that take power from the UN, just because people's sufferness.
UN sanctions aren't effective, and are indiscriminate in their effects. Let's do away with them and think about alternate methods for the UN to intervene.show me the alternatives, if you can.
I think that sanctions is effective, If you use them properly.

HOLDING that the decision to place economic sanctions on a given state is a decision to be made by national governments and not the United Nations;

REGARDING the use of the United Nations as an instrument to place economic sanctions on a given state as inappropriate and beneath the dignity of the United Nations, which should be a tool of international cooperation, not a tool to advance the interests of one member state over any other;

NOTING that the application of economic sanctions by the United Nations has never produced the desired effect, and has often had dire consequences for innocent civilians;

WE ARE RESOLVED that the United Nations should not be empowered to place economic sanctions on any state, United Nations member or otherwise.

This resolution is about to expire. I will resubmit it if there is any interest.

We're interested in its expiring....

that is just like say that punish criminals will punish their families, too. the fact somebody could be harm can't justified ban of sanctions on criminals.
the Iraqi people suffered because of the crimes of their goverment. any leadership get their power from the people and the people could drop their goverment. as such, they responsiable to their state acts.
if the people can't do that, the UN had to help them get freedom by sanctions, or make the state leave the UN, and loose the world wide benefits.
The whole point of a dictatorship which rules through terror is that the people are brutalised and terrified of their government to the point that they don't dare resist it. The Iraq example demonstrates the ineffectiveness of UN sanctions against such governments because they target the people, not just the government. You're essentially saying that if an oppressed people don't overthrow their government, then they deserve to suffer the effects of sanctions. I don't believe that this is fair or humane.
the league of nations could do more if they could make sanctions on germany. but nothing happen until Hitler conquered Poland.
still, this isn't Important because we arn't talking on the real world.
Once again, I don't think sanctions by the League of Nations would've helped given the number of countries which weren't involved (especially the United States). But you're right, this isn't real-life.
as I said, right could be exist only if you aren't take basic right from another person.
I know that sanctions aren't the best solution (and they had to use only in drastic situations), but unless you find me better solution (despite just ban sanctions), I can't agree with you.
and again, if some state decide to make jenocide and/or war crimes and passed on 2 important UN proposal, I want the UN will go all the way and crush them down.
Green Israel is safe thanks to the UN who prohibid from other states to conquered other states.
if the UN will had no power all the proposals he had will became meaningless, and other countries will be able to attack me.
Point to the proposal which would stop Pantocratoria from attacking Green Israel. Point to the UN force which would stop Pantocratoria from attacking Green Israel. It doesn't exist. The UN isn't doing anything to keep you safe.
I don't want the UN will became "league of nations 2". I can't vote for proposal that take power from the UN, just because people's sufferness.
show me the alternatives, if you can.
I think that sanctions is effective, If you use them properly.
Then maybe we should talk about the proper use of sanctions. I would argue that it is entirely appropriate to take power away from the UN which could lead to innocent people suffering - the UN serves no purpose at all if not to improve the quality of life of the world's inhabitants. Given that sanctions can have such disastrous an impact on people's quality of life, I would argue that the UN has no business imposing them.

The whole point of a dictatorship which rules through terror is that the people are brutalised and terrified of their government to the point that they don't dare resist it. The Iraq example demonstrates the ineffectiveness of UN sanctions against such governments because they target the people, not just the government. You're essentially saying that if an oppressed people don't overthrow their government, then they deserve to suffer the effects of sanctions. I don't believe that this is fair or humane.I never said that sanctions are magical perfect soution, but I can't see other way. anyway, the UN had to fight the evil and if you can't see other way than sanctions, sactions this would be.
there are no weapon who can't demage the victims, but there is no way that evil could live without anyone who can stop him.
Then maybe we should talk about the proper use of sanctions. I would argue that it is entirely appropriate to take power away from the UN which could lead to innocent people suffering - the UN serves no purpose at all if not to improve the quality of life of the world's inhabitants. Given that sanctions can have such disastrous an impact on people's quality of life, I would argue that the UN has no business imposing them.
lets talk about proper use of sanctions.
if state made war crimes, you think she wouldn't have to suffer?
if goverment made jenocide, you don't want to punish her?
if there is evil, would you let him win?
what other way you could fight them peacfully?
what other way you could punish them?