NationStates Jolt Archive

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

Who is going to provide the evidence for this?
And how will the UN prevent it from being used as a pre-text to invade other nations for less honourable reasons than the ones suggested?

I like how you've connected several existing resolutions together, and I find the proposal easy to read and understand.

I'd also recommend that a reference to the Eon Convention be worked it *if* at all possible. It seems to address some of this, as does the Wolfish Convention.

I have no idea how the moderators or nations will feel about the last clause ... as in the past anything sounds like it mandates action (which this just allows for it) sends off warning bells.

I'm surprised this isn't already an International Law. Zootropia will endorse this proposal if the problems addressed by TilEnca are logically answered.

Who is going to provide the evidence for this?
And how will the UN prevent it from being used as a pre-text to invade other nations for less honourable reasons than the ones suggested?

The evidence for grave violations of human rights should be fairly apparent, and while the flag could arguably be raised by any nation, evidence will in fact come from two main sources: either the people of the state themselves, asking for outside help or protection from their own government; or secondly, from independent bodies such as Amnesty International, etc, i.e. international human rights organisations, who should have no vested interests.

As for using humanitarian grounds as a pretext for invading for less honourable reasons, that is why the proposal has stipulated that any action must both be a multilateral, never unilateral, action, and must always be authorised by the UN. Since the UN does not serve the interests of any one state or nation, and works on a system of impartiality, this should reduce the problem of vested interests.

I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask more or for further clarification.

I like how you've connected several existing resolutions together, and I find the proposal easy to read and understand.

I'd also recommend that a reference to the Eon Convention be worked it *if* at all possible. It seems to address some of this, as does the Wolfish Convention.

I have no idea how the moderators or nations will feel about the last clause ... as in the past anything sounds like it mandates action (which this just allows for it) sends off warning bells.

Yes, the EON Convention is especially relevant, and I'm very annoyed that I missed it out now. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think I'm able to edit it now that the proposal has been submitted, but if I get the chance to resubmit it at a later date I will definitely include that.

As for your concerns, I'm not sure I get what you mean. I don't think this proposal demands changes to game mechanics at least.

It doesn't make intervention obligatory, just ensures the right of nations to intervene.

I think the third clause should refer more generally to the UN's human rights legislation - there's no need to refer specifically to the UBR clause about cruel or unusual punishment.

I also think you're going to need to explain exactly how the UN assesses evidence and decides whether to authorise action.

I realise there are alot of details not included in the proposal. That is purely because I wasn't sure how long proposals were allowed to be, and the topic is potentially very complex.

Yes, the EON Convention is especially relevant, and I'm very annoyed that I missed it out now. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think I'm able to edit it now that the proposal has been submitted, but if I get the chance to resubmit it at a later date I will definitely include that.

As for your concerns, I'm not sure I get what you mean. I don't think this proposal demands changes to game mechanics at least.

Well, just hope that it gets 100 endorsments, but not over 130. You can then try again with a change incorporated to reference the Eon Convention.


It is hard to remember what has been dealt with in the prior resolutions and what hasn't. Even many of us that have been around for a long time forget and do so frequently.

That is why the UNA-Mikitivity asked the United Nations Association to start the following:

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=33


As for the issue of game mechanics ... maybe having a statement on hand saying why it doesn't really change things will pre-empt any future questions focused on that topic.

I know that if the Tsunami proposal reaches the floor, that I need to build a FAQ and include estimates of costs of similar real-world measures.

Well really I'd prefer for it just to pass the first time without amendment :) The inclusion of the Eon Convention would merely strengthen my case.

As for your index proposal, yes that would be a very good idea, especially since it is a punishable offence to duplicate existing resolutions. When I was drafting my proposal I had to first write out a list of all the resolutions to make sure it hadn't previously been covered. Then I had to rescan this list to find relevant proposals to build on in my proposal. It was effortsome.

As for your index proposal, yes that would be a very good idea, especially since it is a punishable offence to duplicate existing resolutions. When I was drafting my proposal I had to first write out a list of all the resolutions to make sure it hadn't previously been covered. Then I had to rescan this list to find relevant proposals to build on in my proposal. It was effortsome.

:) I'll redouble my efforts to keep that list up to date and relevanent. Though it would be possible for others to just add entries and then me (or another UNA moderator) to update the pinned list.

As for your proposal, if it doesn't look like it is going to get 130-140 endorsements, copy the list of nations that have endorsed it and try again. Proposals typically take several times.

The evidence for grave violations of human rights should be fairly apparent, and while the flag could arguably be raised by any nation, evidence will in fact come from two main sources: either the people of the state themselves, asking for outside help or protection from their own government; or secondly, from independent bodies such as Amnesty International, etc, i.e. international human rights organisations, who should have no vested interests.


How would it be assessed? For example if there was a group of TilEncan dissidents who wanted me overthrown (for some reason - they didn't like my hair colour or something!) then they could appeal for help to the UN and get someone to invade and wipe out my government when we have done nothing wrong.


As for using humanitarian grounds as a pretext for invading for less honourable reasons, that is why the proposal has stipulated that any action must both be a multilateral, never unilateral, action, and must always be authorised by the UN. Since the UN does not serve the interests of any one state or nation, and works on a system of impartiality, this should reduce the problem of vested interests.


And if the largest gold find ever is in the middle of TilEnca, do you really have enough faith in the surrounding nations not to give in to temptation?

I realise I am sounding a tad paranoid here, but if people are going to waltz in and start a war in my nation, overthrowing my government, then I would like assurances that it will only be done if I have gone off the deep-end and should be removed for the good of my people. Not just because I happen to like fried clams on toast, or because I am sitting on the largest mineral deposits in the history of eternity.


I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask more or for further clarification.

(grin) You did and I did :}

How would it be assessed? For example if there was a group of TilEncan dissidents who wanted me overthrown (for some reason - they didn't like my hair colour or something!) then they could appeal for help to the UN and get someone to invade and wipe out my government when we have done nothing wrong.

No, the proposal states that such action would only be appropriate in the case of severe human rights violations. If I have to do a redraft this will be made more clear, especially when linked to the Eon Convention. I'm referring to cases such as genocide or ethnic cleansing for example. If you're not doing anything seriously wrong then there is no basis for humanitarian intervention.


And if the largest gold find ever is in the middle of TilEnca, do you really have enough faith in the surrounding nations not to give in to temptation?

I realise I am sounding a tad paranoid here, but if people are going to waltz in and start a war in my nation, overthrowing my government, then I would like assurances that it will only be done if I have gone off the deep-end and should be removed for the good of my people. Not just because I happen to like fried clams on toast, or because I am sitting on the largest mineral deposits in the history of eternity.


But the surrounding nations cannot just act on their own. First of all, you need to be committing genocide or some other heinous crime. Giving them justification, yes, the gold merely providing a motivation to get involved perhaps. But this is irrelevant: these nations, no matter how much justification you give them for intervention, must first seek UN authorisation [NB, this is strictly a role playing scenario and not a game mechanics resolution]. If there is no case for humanitarian intervention, then there will be no authorisation for intervention.

Then I have no problem with it :}

As a UN Regional Delegate, please help to endorse this proposal (if you agree with it), which aims to introduce a right to humanitarian intervention when the human rights of a nation are being violated by an illegitimate government. Any tips or comments appreciated. Thankyou for your time.

You're welcome. And don't think I'm being evil because it's personal. I'm being evil because, frankly, I just am.

Description:
WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

Not bad reference.

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

By "international law" it means "the will of the UN." It only applies to UN members.

CONSIDERING further that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

Only if they are UN members, though.

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

Actually, that depends on the state. Some states have that purpose. Others don't.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

My danger senses are going off at this point. This strikes me as leading up to a way to force UN resolutions on nonmembers.

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality".

Yep. Exactly what I thought.

Okay, this is nothing more than a resolution that tries to get around the rules about affect nonmembers by providing members with a way to enforce, with the UN's blessing, UN resolutions on nonmember nations. It will get the UN dealt with, and not in a manner you like.

Besides, the last time I tried that, it ended up with the majority of the people I was trying to help put under a different dictator. The previous time, they died during the conflict. There are multiple instances where attempting that has led to the deaths of the very people the invader was trying to save.

Okay, this is nothing more than a resolution that tries to get around the rules about affect nonmembers by providing members with a way to enforce, with the UN's blessing, UN resolutions on nonmember nations. It will get the UN dealt with, and not in a manner you like.

Besides, the last time I tried that, it ended up with the majority of the people I was trying to help put under a different dictator. The previous time, they died during the conflict. There are multiple instances where attempting that has led to the deaths of the very people the invader was trying to save.

To deal with your first point re a UN resolution affecting non-UN members. It doesn't directly interfere with them in that they do not inherit the right mentioned in it. But I see your point in that it gives UN nations the right to intervene in their affairs for not adhering to the UN notion of human rights.

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that this necessarily matters. UN member states still have to interact with non-UN members and UN members alike, whether they abide by the same laws or not. But presumably, UN members even when interacting with non-UN members are still restricted by UN laws in how they act towards them. This law would give them more freedom in that area when dealing with non-UN members. And a risk of not being a UN member is precisely that you get less protection from international law by not being a part of it. I believe that human rights, and the rights of peoples, are higher than those of soveriegnty, especially when the political power is abusing their power- they would have no power without their people, they should not then massively abuse their people.

Furthermore, a non-UN member can intervene with a non-UN member whenever it likes and for whatever reason. This law lets UN members do it ONLY when it is justified by human rights violations on a massive scale, ie when it is justified and "right" (being careful with that word).


Your second point deals with the consequences of the intervention. Of course there is risk involved. But a well planned and multilateral response reduces the risks somewhat. And while the outcomes will never be guaranteed, so long as the intentions are good and due thought given to any consequences before action is taken then they cannot be faulted. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something, especially if entire nations are being slaughtered by their own government- it would be hard to make that situation worse.

To deal with your first point re a UN resolution affecting non-UN members. It doesn't directly interfere with them in that they do not inherit the right mentioned in it. But I see your point in that it gives UN nations the right to intervene in their affairs for not adhering to the UN notion of human rights.

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that this necessarily matters. UN member states still have to interact with non-UN members and UN members alike, whether they abide by the same laws or not. But presumably, UN members even when interacting with non-UN members are still restricted by UN laws in how they act towards them. This law would give them more freedom in that area when dealing with non-UN members. And a risk of not being a UN member is precisely that you get less protection from international law by not being a part of it. I believe that human rights, and the rights of peoples, are higher than those of soveriegnty, especially when the political power is abusing their power- they would have no power without their people, they should not then massively abuse their people.

Furthermore, a non-UN member can intervene with a non-UN member whenever it likes and for whatever reason. This law lets UN members do it ONLY when it is justified by human rights violations on a massive scale, ie when it is justified and "right" (being careful with that word).

I see your point in that. But I must question about cases of warfare not related to this. Do those count as interference?

Your second point deals with the consequences of the intervention. Of course there is risk involved. But a well planned and multilateral response reduces the risks somewhat. And while the outcomes will never be guaranteed, so long as the intentions are good and due thought given to any consequences before action is taken then they cannot be faulted. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something, especially if entire nations are being slaughtered by their own government- it would be hard to make that situation worse.

True. But slaughtering the people you're trying to save on accident never looks good, no matter how just your intentions are.

I see your point in that. But I must question about cases of warfare not related to this. Do those count as interference?


I don't understand what you're implying, sorry. Can you reword it?

Gwenstefani, I really do think that any redraft should include at least an idea of how the UN would assess the evidence offered and decide whether to authorise military action.

DLE, I don't think there are problems where you see them. This wouldn't force UN members to act against non-UN members, it simply gives them the right to - and if a pro-human rights nation with the military force necessary to liberate an oppressed non-UN nation wants to deal with the oppressors, and the UN reckons it to be a good idea, why shouldn't they?

As to the possibility that war may only make things worse, I agree totally. Hopefully, if Gwenstefani includes details of some kind of mechanism for assessing the case, the assessment will have to include the question of whether military intervention will really improve things. Also, thinking along these lines, I'd like something making it obligatory to have a coherent plan to deal with the aftermath, which the UN would also have to approve before authorisation to intervene could be given.

Gwenstefani, I really do think that any redraft should include at least an idea of how the UN would assess the evidence offered and decide whether to authorise military action.

As to the possibility that war may only make things worse, I agree totally. Hopefully, if Gwenstefani includes details of some kind of mechanism for assessing the case, the assessment will have to include the question of whether military intervention will really improve things. Also, thinking along these lines, I'd like something making it obligatory to have a coherent plan to deal with the aftermath, which the UN would also have to approve before authorisation to intervene could be given.

As to the assessment and decision of the case, the assessment as previously mentioned could be handled by independent human rights bodies, while the authorisation would be the result of a UN vote, following discussion and a weighing up of the pros and cons of intervention. I do like your ideas on post-intervetion responsibilities, and will definitely incorporate them into future drafts.

IF the International Court of Justice is ever created / resolution is passed, then they too could be used in an advisory capacity for this issue, to assess whether intervention is justified.

I really think the assessment has to be handled by the UN - human rights organisations could request an assessment and present their evidence, but the UN has got to get the evidence together, sort it out, possibly obtain their own research, and make a decision on that basis.

Also, I don't know that you can do it by UN vote, because UN votes are for resolutions and resolutions can't be nation-specific. So I think you ought to set up some kind of panel of judges to assess and decide, and give the General Assembly (that's us) the power to overrule and replace them.

All this needs to go into the resolution text.

I don't understand what you're implying, sorry. Can you reword it?

Let's say that, for some reason, I go to war with Kelssek over extradition of criminals. In both cases, neither of us are oppressing our people. My question is if this counts as interference in a nation under this proposal.

DLE, I don't think there are problems where you see them. This wouldn't force UN members to act against non-UN members, it simply gives them the right to - and if a pro-human rights nation with the military force necessary to liberate an oppressed non-UN nation wants to deal with the oppressors, and the UN reckons it to be a good idea, why shouldn't they?

Actually, most of my questions were answered in a way that eliminated the problems.

Why shouldn't they? The only problem is the risk of them ending up killing the people they are trying to save. Take a look at how Japan created suicide bombers through propaganda to get an idea of how it could turn out.

As to the possibility that war may only make things worse, I agree totally. Hopefully, if Gwenstefani includes details of some kind of mechanism for assessing the case, the assessment will have to include the question of whether military intervention will really improve things. Also, thinking along these lines, I'd like something making it obligatory to have a coherent plan to deal with the aftermath, which the UN would also have to approve before authorisation to intervene could be given.

I think temporary annexation would be in order. The nation remains semi-independant and the liberators must protect it and help it rebuild. Then, the nation declares its independence without the liberators objecting and reenters the international scene.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

As you can see, the new version is more of an extension of the already existing Eon Convention, which states that genocide extends beyong the realms of national sovereignty and that the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

My proposal says that intervention should be allowed to bring a stop to the atrocities, and then the perpetrators can be brought to justice by the Eon Convention, which at the moment, while saying it is wrong, does nothing to stop it from happening.

I hope this addresses all the issues raised in the thread so far, but if any new issues have arisen, please let me know. Thanks.

Ok the proposal has been submitted, so I urge all UN delegates to now please vote for it. Any questions, get in touch. Thanks!

Would "human rights violations" extend to the death penalty?

Would "human rights violations" extend to the death penalty?

No, as this tends to be on an individual basis. This proposal applies only to mass violations of human rights, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Looks good! I'll get on to my regional Rep to get it endorsed

No, as this tends to be on an individual basis. This proposal applies only to mass violations of human rights, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Then you need to be more specific about that in the proposal. In Nargopia, we view the death penalty as a mass violation of human rights. We can't support a proposal when we aren't 100% sure of what is being proposed.

As do all UN nations. I believe we are banned from using the death penalty

Then you need to be more specific about that in the proposal. In Nargopia, we view the death penalty as a mass violation of human rights. We can't support a proposal when we aren't 100% sure of what is being proposed.

I feel the proposal does deal with this:

"CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Also, "mass violations" was intended to imply that the human rights of many people were being violated, not just one person's rights being severely abused.

I feel the proposal does deal with this:

"CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)
"Other extreme human rights violations" needs to be defined. Apparently some nations feel that outlawing prostitution is an extreme human rights violation; others think that owning guns and the right to euthanasia are both fundamental human rights. Just add in some more specifics and I'll probably support this.

Well it has been proposed now. Besides as long as the Eon convention is listened to and that the experts are heeded then I do not see any problems with this Idea.

"Other extreme human rights violations" needs to be defined. Apparently some nations feel that outlawing prostitution is an extreme human rights violation; others think that owning guns and the right to euthanasia are both fundamental human rights. Just add in some more specifics and I'll probably support this.

I'll definitely do that on a redraft, but I have already submitted the propsal due to lack of comment here in the forums until now. However, in international law, phrases such as "other human rights violations, etc" which do not specifically name something are usually meaningless in that if they are not directly mentioned they don't count. However, the phrase just means that the proposal is open to future amendments (through new proposals) and that it is not a closed book. Any further examples other than genocide or ethnic cleansing would have to go through the UN propsal system again. Sorry, I don't think I made that clear. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

As do all UN nations. I believe we are banned from using the death penalty

Where did you get that idea from?

I thought one of the old resolutions siad we couldn't. I must confess I haven't read through them now for several months so I could be going crazy! :rolleyes:

There have been several attempts to pass a resolution on the death penatly - from both sides - but they have all (as far as I know?) met with failure.

Then you need to be more specific about that in the proposal. In Nargopia, we view the death penalty as a mass violation of human rights. We can't support a proposal when we aren't 100% sure of what is being proposed.

We like the death penalty. We've put in an express lane.

As to the resolution - we'd like to ask who would perform the military intervention?

We like the death penalty. We've put in an express lane.

As to the resolution - we'd like to ask who would perform the military intervention?

The intervention would be carried out by an alliance of states under the auspices, and with the express consent of, and guidance by, the UN. It is also possible that a UN Task Force could be created. However, if the UN council approved, any coalition of states that both proves it case for intervention, and proves that its plan for intervention AND post-intervention is optimal, may make the intervention. This rules out as much as possible intervention for secondary motives.

The intervention would be carried out by an alliance of states under the auspices, and with the express consent of, and guidance by, the UN. It is also possible that a UN Task Force could be created. However, if the UN council approved, any coalition of states that both proves it case for intervention, and proves that its plan for intervention AND post-intervention is optimal, may make the intervention. This rules out as much as possible intervention for secondary motives.

And where is this spelled out?

The Irish Brotherhood does not like this proposal. We will not be made to help out another country if we do not wish too. The Irish Brotherhood is in it for themselves. Whatever goes on in another country is that countries problem.

There have been several attempts to pass a resolution on the death penatly - from both sides - but they have all (as far as I know?) met with failure.

Whew! Glad to hear it... we've been executing drunk drivers for some time now...

The Irish Brotherhood does not like this proposal. We will not be made to help out another country if we do not wish too. The Irish Brotherhood is in it for themselves. Whatever goes on in another country is that countries problem.

You don't have to help out other countries. The proposal only gives you the right to do so if you wish.

And where is this spelled out?

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

Will it require a NSUN resolution be passed any time a country sees the need for a specific case of humanitarian intervention?

This has wayy 2 many loop holes. firstly who decides whether a government needs to be removed or not. they can easily justify that they are working around their constitution and that they have been chosen by the people. also this could be misused. youve quoted the UN charter which speaks about sovereignity.. how on earth are u upholding sovereign rights of nations if u go about reoving countries on the basis of misgovernance. what if a country X is poor and thus living conditions are bad. to a much larger country Y which is richer the conditions of life in prisons maybe as "good" as the conditions in which regular citizens of country X stay in.. that does require humanitarian aid but how can u remove the government!! also where is the UN going to produce so much money!! have u thought of the economic factors!!!

This has wayy 2 many loop holes. firstly who decides whether a government needs to be removed or not. they can easily justify that they are working around their constitution and that they have been chosen by the people. also this could be misused. youve quoted the UN charter which speaks about sovereignity.. how on earth are u upholding sovereign rights of nations if u go about reoving countries on the basis of misgovernance. what if a country X is poor and thus living conditions are bad. to a much larger country Y which is richer the conditions of life in prisons maybe as "good" as the conditions in which regular citizens of country X stay in.. that does require humanitarian aid but how can u remove the government!! also where is the UN going to produce so much money!! have u thought of the economic factors!!!

Last edited by Rishav : Today at 2:23 PM. Reason: color
You did all that on purpose?

There have been several attempts to pass a resolution on the death penatly - from both sides - but they have all (as far as I know?) met with failure.

There may be some clause burried in one of the many Human Rights resolutions that might frown upon the death penalty, but I think essentially you are correct: meaning that the attempts to outright regulate capital punishment has failed.

Two resolutions limiting capital punishment have failed. I've not seen any pro-capital punishment resolution reach the floor.

This has wayy 2 many loop holes. firstly who decides whether a government needs to be removed or not. they can easily justify that they are working around their constitution and that they have been chosen by the people. also this could be misused. youve quoted the UN charter which speaks about sovereignity.. how on earth are u upholding sovereign rights of nations if u go about reoving countries on the basis of misgovernance. what if a country X is poor and thus living conditions are bad. to a much larger country Y which is richer the conditions of life in prisons maybe as "good" as the conditions in which regular citizens of country X stay in.. that does require humanitarian aid but how can u remove the government!! also where is the UN going to produce so much money!! have u thought of the economic factors!!!

Did you even read the proposal?? Whether the country is poor and has poor living conditions is irrelevant. They still must not be allowed to commit genocide and that is what this proposal intends to prevent, nothing else. And as for your question about who decides, that has also been dealt with: the UN committee created in response to the allegation.

Will it require a NSUN resolution be passed any time a country sees the need for a specific case of humanitarian intervention?

No, whenever a case is brought before the UN, it will convene a panel who assesses the situation (see the last paragraph of the resolution).

The Irish Brotherhood does not like this proposal. We will not be made to help out another country if we do not wish too. The Irish Brotherhood is in it for themselves. Whatever goes on in another country is that countries problem.
This is interesting, seeing as you argued in a most vehement (and juvenile, I might add) manner against the concept of national sovereignty. Apparently you only support the will of the UN when it matches your own.

Did you even read the proposal?? Whether the country is poor and has poor living conditions is irrelevant. They still must not be allowed to commit genocide and that is what this proposal intends to prevent, nothing else. And as for your question about who decides, that has also been dealt with: the UN committee created in response to the allegation.

I've not re-read the current draft, so even those of us that have read the proposal could probably stand to revisit the idea.

That said, perhaps a section by section analysis by you would help. :)

Grosseschnauzer and I didn't do this with the Tsunami resolution, however, we did draft up a FAQ. If you are seeing repeat questions, maybe that is the route to go.

This is interesting, seeing as you argued in a most vehement (and juvenile, I might add) manner against the concept of national sovereignty. Apparently you only support the will of the UN when it matches your own.

Hmmm.... how did that go again? Oh yeah... something about if you don't like it leave the UN?

Hmmm.... how did that go again? Oh yeah... something about if you don't like it leave the UN?
Correct, except you forgot the profanity and middle finger smily. Oh yeah, and the poor grammar, and the arguments taken out of context, and the failure to understand others' replies, and...

No, whenever a case is brought before the UN, it will convene a panel who assesses the situation (see the last paragraph of the resolution).
That's not what the proposal at the top of page 1 says. If you've changed the proposal during the thread, please update the original post to reflect the current version.

So, where will that panel be convened? Who will be on it? How will the rest of us be notified that it's been convened?

Let me be blunt:

I don't want a feel good resolution that won't actually affect the game.
I have a list of nationstates I want to bring charges against in the game.
I want a mechanism so that when UN members post about mass graves in their countries because they don't like the effects of a resolution, I can report them and have their nationstate deleted or ejected from NSUN.

Also, as I read it, this resolution would effectively allow us to make the genocide resolutions binding on non-UN nationstates. Is that your intent, or is there something I'm missing?

OOC:

p.s. does anyone know why I suddenly have "Sometimes Deadly" under my name? Not complaining, just curious.

OOC:

p.s. does anyone know why I suddenly have "Sometimes Deadly" under my name? Not complaining, just curious.
I actually asked you about that in another thread. I thought you did it yourself and was wondering what the posting threshold was for that.

This is interesting, seeing as you argued in a most vehement (and juvenile, I might add) manner against the concept of national sovereignty. Apparently you only support the will of the UN when it matches your own.

For your information, I was not arguing against national sovereignty. I said that The Irish Brotherhood were willing to take a few knocks on our sovereignty to help our cause. Yes, so you could say we choose to do so when it suits us. But, what country doesn't?

OOC:

p.s. does anyone know why I suddenly have "Sometimes Deadly" under my name? Not complaining, just curious.

It relates to the number of posts on the board.

For your information, I was not arguing against national sovereignty. I said that The Irish Brotherhood were willing to take a few knocks on our sovereignty to help our cause. Yes, so you could say we choose to do so when it suits us. But, what country doesn't?

Actually, there are quite a few.

That's not what the proposal at the top of page 1 says. If you've changed the proposal during the thread, please update the original post to reflect the current version.

So, where will that panel be convened? Who will be on it? How will the rest of us be notified that it's been convened?

Let me be blunt:

I don't want a feel good resolution that won't actually affect the game.
I have a list of nationstates I want to bring charges against in the game.
I want a mechanism so that when UN members post about mass graves in their countries because they don't like the effects of a resolution, I can report them and have their nationstate deleted or ejected from NSUN.

Sorry, I had not updated the first page, but posted the second draft of the resolution later on in the thread. That has been changed now. Please see the updated version.

As far as the panel is concerned, to save space in this proposal (because they can't be too long) I adopted a method similar to the one already used in the Eon Convention (Res 83 I think):

"Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security. "

Except in this case, it would be to assess whether intervention is appropriate, and also how the intervening party should go about doing so.

My resolution builds on this convention in other ways. It seeks to be able to go into a state where genocide is happening, and stop it from happening, and then hand over the perpetrators who will be dealt with under the Eon Convention. The Eon Convention currently only punishes transgressors after the tragedy has occurred, but how does that help those being slaughtered? My proposal is more proactive.

Also, as I read it, this resolution would effectively allow us to make the genocide resolutions binding on non-UN nationstates. Is that your intent, or is there something I'm missing?

No. Ish. It doesn't directly interfere with non-UN members in that they do not inherit the right mentioned in it, and they cannot be punished by the Eon Convention because they did not sign up to the law forbidding it. But the resolution does give UN nations the right to intervene in their affairs for not adhering to the UN notion of human rights ie genocide.

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that this necessarily matters. UN member states still have to interact with non-UN members and UN members alike, whether they abide by the same laws or not. But presumably, UN members even when interacting with non-UN members are still restricted by UN laws in how they act towards them. This law would give them more freedom in that area when dealing with non-UN members. And a risk of not being a UN member is precisely that you get less protection from international law by not being a part of it. I believe that human rights, and the rights of peoples, are higher than those of soveriegnty, especially when the political power is abusing their power- they would have no power without their people, they should not then massively abuse their people.

Furthermore, a non-UN member can intervene with a non-UN member whenever it likes and for whatever reason. This law lets UN members do it ONLY when it is justified by human rights violations on a massive scale, ie when it is justified and "right" (being careful with that word).

And while we cannot punish non-UN members under the Eon Convention (only members) because they are not party to that law, it doesn't mean that we can't stop them from committing genocide through military means. And if you believe that preventing genocide is a worthy enough cause (and I believe the UN should given its stance on human rights and genocide) then the UN should be concerned with non-UN members citizens in such cases.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention; .
Fine.

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";.
Non negotiable

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law"; .
See below

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power, .
As above

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”..
No question

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;.

This is the problem, even the guilty have to be totally protected by the law. To contradict a law is to undermine that law, to reform a law is possible, to ignore a law is a crime.

Otherwise we support the resolutions aim.

"Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security. "

OOC: and please, respond ooc.
I'm not sure how we could role-play this.
I think the specific numbers are open to abuse, though.

I envision a group of 8 countries angry about the Sex Industry Workers act getting together and springing this in the International Incidents forum, claiming to be 2 lawyers from each of their countries involved, declaring Groot Gouda in violation and then invading Groot in the name of the NSUN.

No, I'm wrong. No need for them to meet on the jolt forums at all. They could meet on one of the big regional boards, even.

The next question is whether they could then have any effect on Groot Gouda.




As I said above, I would want this resolution to be an actual weapon we could actually use in the game. I'd like to participate in a tribunal thread on this board. I'd like the decision of the tribunal to matter - even up to and including removing the offending country.

This is the problem, even the guilty have to be totally protected by the law. To contradict a law is to undermine that law, to reform a law is possible, to ignore a law is a crime.

Otherwise we support the resolutions aim.

I see your point, and I think it comes down to poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say is that they only lose the right to non-intervention, and only in the case of, and for the duration of, genocide. If I get a redraft I will amend that.

OOC

OOC: and please, respond ooc.
I'm not sure how we could role-play this.
I think the specific numbers are open to abuse, though.

I envision a group of 8 countries angry about the Sex Industry Workers act getting together and springing this in the International Incidents forum, claiming to be 2 lawyers from each of their countries involved, declaring Groot Gouda in violation and then invading Groot in the name of the NSUN.



But they couldn't use this proposal to justify that in this case. Only cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing count. The legalisation of prositution is inapplicable. And they will therefore not get permission from the UN.


As I said above, I would want this resolution to be an actual weapon we could actually use in the game. I'd like to participate in a tribunal thread on this board. I'd like the decision of the tribunal to matter - even up to and including removing the offending country.

Well, obviously all of this would come down to roleplay, since it wouldn't change the game mechanics. And that would all depend on the commitment of those involved. How is the Eon Convention carried out? Because this would work in a very similar way.

Having its own messageboard with poll capabilities could work?

I have 107 votes already, only 38 more needed. Delegates who haven't voted already- please do! It's on the first page of the proposal list now. And it's the closest proposal to getting to a UN vote at the moment.

Go ahead and pass it. I'll enjoy abusing this to take out nations I don't like.

Oh, Gwestefani, I'm finding you in violation of human rights.

Go ahead and pass it. I'll enjoy abusing this to take out nations I don't like.

Oh, Gwestefani, I'm finding you in violation of human rights.

DLE, how many times do I have to say this, you can't invade me based on the violation of just any human rights, it must be extreme and mass violations of HRs such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Anything else isn't covered by the proposal, which although says "and any other..." blah blah doesn't mean squat because it doesn't explicitly list them- it just leaves the way open for future resolutions to expand on the list.

If your intentions are not sound, or your reasoning for intervention not consistent with the proposal, then the UN will not grant permission for intervention, making it an illegal military act.

DLE, how many times do I have to say this, you can't invade me based on the violation of just any human rights, it must be extreme and mass violations of HRs such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Anything else isn't covered by the proposal, which although says "and any other..." blah blah doesn't mean squat because it doesn't explicitly list them- it just leaves the way open for future resolutions to expand on the list.

The fact it says "and any other" leaves open the possibility that I can find one you haven't thought of and decide to invade you for it. They may not be covered by it, but the wording allows it to be automatically expanded to cover them, as long as they are on a grand scale. You'd be surprised what can be interpreted to be a massive abuse of civil rights on a grand scale.

If you had wished the list to be expanded, you should have created an actual list or just referenced past UN resolutions and including a clause that it covers all future human rights decisions the UN makes. Now's too late.

So, yes, by the wording a logical interpretation allows me to invade now by the simple fact it covers a multitude of violations but doesn't state, beyond a couple of examples, what they are.

If your intentions are not sound, or your reasoning for intervention not consistent with the proposal, then the UN will not grant permission for intervention, making it an illegal military act.

Illogical. Unless it is an act the UN has specifically banned, it's not illegal. The UN has not banned me from invading you just because I feel like it, making such an action perfectly legal. Since I am doing this on my own and not as part of a coalition or petitioning the UN for it to be allowed, your proposal doesn't even have the right to blink in protest.

As for stretching this to be a reason for it: Anything can be a reason for war.

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]
Illogical. Unless it is an act the UN has specifically banned, it's not illegal. The UN has not banned me from invading you just because I feel like it, making such an action perfectly legal. Since I am doing this on my own and not as part of a coalition or petitioning the UN for it to be allowed, your proposal doesn't even have the right to blink in protest.

[QUOTE]

The proposal states that any intervention must:
a) be part of a coalition- multilateral, not unilateral, action only.
b) in the aims of putting an end to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or some other crime in the same category as this. You can try to have it based on some minor human rights violation but this is against the meaning of the proposal, no one else is likely to agree with you, least of all the UN panel, and you would be foolish to try to do so anyway.

So yes, you may go to war with me, but it will not be a humanitarian intervention as defined by this proposal.

The proposal states that any intervention must:
a) be part of a coalition- multilateral, not unilateral, action only.

It defines it as that but does not disallow individual nations from intervening for humanitarian reasons.

b) in the aims of putting an end to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or some other crime in the same category as this. You can try to have it based on some minor human rights violation but this is against the meaning of the proposal, no one else is likely to agree with you, least of all the UN panel, and you would be foolish to try to do so anyway.

Actually, it says "extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*" and "(* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)" An extreme case of human rights violations can also be a minor violation taken to the extreme and applied to an entire people. The definition you give does not in any way exclude that possibility from it, thus making it to where I can use a minor violation as a reason for invasion if it is done on a massive scale. Oh, not all genocides and ethnic cleansings are on grand scales, which means it could be just a single person of an ethnicity being eliminated and as long as they are either the only person or one of a handful of that ethnicity it can be deemed an ethnic cleansing.

And if you bothered to read the entirety of my post, you would notice where I stated this:

Since I am doing this on my own and not as part of a coalition or petitioning the UN for it to be allowed, your proposal doesn't even have the right to blink in protest.

When I said I was going to abuse this, I didn't say I was going to use this on you.

So yes, you may go to war with me, but it will not be a humanitarian intervention as defined by this proposal.

No, it will be intervening for humanitarian reasons on my own.

So if you are talking about an invasion not covered by this proposal then why is it relevant to this discussion? Given that UN members must respect national sovereignty and the inviolability of international borders, etc, then you can not legally intervene in the affairs of another state. This proposal gives that legality in very limited circumstances.

And sometimes it is not just the letter of the law that counts, but the spirit of the law. That is why the proposal does not just allow individual nations to judge the merits of their case and intervene. INstead, you need a coaltion of willing states AND a panel of UN members has to judge the merits of the case too, and only then does the analysis of whether intervention can work come into it, and THEN one can legally intervene.

BUT, if I do have to redraft again, I will make sure as to be even more explicit as to what counts as a valid reason to intervene. Just for you DLE.

So if you are talking about an invasion not covered by this proposal then why is it relevant to this discussion? Given that UN members must respect national sovereignty and the inviolability of international borders, etc, then you can not legally intervene in the affairs of another state. This proposal gives that legality in very limited circumstances.

Where did you get that it is illegal to intervene in the matters of another state? UN members do it all the time. Hell, UN members have gone to war for reasons so petty I'm surprised anyone was willing to participate in the RPs. And on here UN members have invaded and destroyed nations for bad resolutions before, not to mention the constant threat of having your delegate assassinated. The resolution that states people have the duty to refrain from unasked intervention does not explicitely outlaw it, as the words it uses allows for people to do such an act as long as they don't do it too often.

The relevance to the discussion is to show how easy it is to declare someone in violation of human rights. I just did it. You require someone to prove it to a panel, but that is only for coalitions asking for permission. It doesn't state anything about what happens if they don't ask permission or go in individually and form a coalition as they encounter each other. If it did, it'd be potentially illegal.

And sometimes it is not just the letter of the law that counts, but the spirit of the law. That is why the proposal does not just allow individual nations to judge the merits of their case and intervene.

In the end, the letter of the law is often all we have to go on. A lot of the older resolutions have a certain spirit behind why they were passed, but without any of the people who wrote or debated them around we have only the letter of the law to go on. The spirit of the law only matters if you have the documentation to back it, and often that's ignored.

INstead, you need a coaltion of willing states AND a panel of UN members has to judge the merits of the case too, and only then does the analysis of whether intervention can work come into it, and THEN one can legally intervene.

I see nothing that states I cannot legally intervene on my own.

Voting ends today, but at what time? Can anyone tell me? Only 5 more votes are needed, it's very tense...

Voting ends twice a day. You can expect this to last a few more hours, as it passed the first deadline.

I approved, but it was already in queue.

Congrats!

Goobergunch City, Goobergunchia
9 February 2005

The following is our interpretation of the proposal to improve worldwide human and civil rights submitted by the representative from Gwenstefani and entitled "Humanitarian Intervention". This proposal has reached quorum and the Secretary-General has tentatively scheduled the vote on the aforementioned proposal for tomorrow.

WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

This reiterative statement is in accordance with our interpretation of the first section of United Nations Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States).

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

This reiterative statement is also in accordance with our interpretation of the eleventh article of Rights and Duties of UN States.

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

This reiterative statement is in accordance with our interpretation of the fifth and ninth articles of United Nations Resolution #26 (The Universal Bill of Rights). It is our belief that the aforementioned resolution constitutes "supreme international law" which overrides national laws, as established both by common-law precedent and by affirmative law under the eleventh article of Rights and Duties of UN States.

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

As one of the Four Charters that constitute the foundation of Goobergunchian law (and the earliest adopted-one at that, too) is the Charter of Rights, which was adopted by the Goobergunchian people in order to protect their rights and allow for governmental creation for that end, we find that this statement is in accordance with the values of the Liberal Unitary Republic.

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

This reiterative statement is in accordance with our interpretation of United Nations Resolution #83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide), provided that genocide is defined as in the first section of the first article of that resolution.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

Although we find that the general principles of this statement are soundly backed by international law, we note that genocide commited by governments should be tried by the Pretenama Panel under the second article of The Eon Convention on Genocide. Existing international law is unclear as to how governments that torture their citizens or otherwise violate The Universal Bill of Rights should be punished, although no United Nations member nation may violate said resolution.

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Participation in such an intervention is not mandated on member nations. However, we do not know how UN authorization would be achieved, given that it is not in order to submit proposals dealing with specific nations. As the Liberal Unitary Republic will not participate in unprovoked military action under the Charter of the Councils, it appears that no alteration in Goobergunchian law will be necessary to comply with this provision.

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

As Goobergunchian citizens enjoy the right of free travel, any serving as a human-rights expert under the terms of this provision would be allowed to attend The Pretenama Panel under standing Goobergunchian law. We understand from the first and last sentences that it would be impossible for a nation who did not request permission to intervene to be ordered to intervene, so the Goobergunchian isolationism policy would be preserved.

Therefore, we determine that no budgetary nor legal changes are necessary for compliance with this proposal.

Consensus Opinion
United Nations Compliance Ministry
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[i][FONT=Garamond]Therefore, we determine that no budgetary nor legal changes are necessary for compliance with this proposal.

You'll (we'll) find out soon enough!

...

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

...



The Sunimir Supreme Assembly has debated this issue at length, and has come to a conclusion, that mention of a "proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation..." is a disgrace to what the UN represents. The United Nations thereby reserves the right to impose military force upon its members for violations, alleged by only 2 nations and confirmed by a panel, whose members are chosen on the basis of a dubious and unclear protocol.

In the past, military interventions of this type almost uniformally destroyed countries, cultures, and pushed whole populations into poverty and chaos. Infrastructure was destroyed, only to be rebuilt by economically powerful foreign investors who shamelessly took advantage of the distress of the wartorn people and exploited whole areas for their own financial gain.

The Supreme Assembly has therefore ruled this resolution unacceptable and in violation of its ideals of sovereignty, peace, and diplomacy. Should the fellow members of the international community adopt a resolution of aggression such as this, the Supreme Assembly of Sunimir regrets to inform fellow member states that Sunimir will be forced to resign from the UN and calls upon other peace-loving countries to do the same. Peace is not kept with threats of war, nor are political alliances made tighter by them.

Supreme Assembly of Sunimir General Secretary
The Honorable Farukh Al Bahrani

The Sunimir Supreme Assembly has debated this issue at length, and has come to a conclusion, that mention of a "proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation..." is a disgrace to what the UN represents. The United Nations thereby reserves the right to impose military force upon its members for violations, alleged by only 2 nations and confirmed by a panel, whose members are chosen on the basis of a dubious and unclear protocol.

In the past, military interventions of this type almost uniformally destroyed countries, cultures, and pushed whole populations into poverty and chaos. Infrastructure was destroyed, only to be rebuilt by economically powerful foreign investors who shamelessly took advantage of the distress of the wartorn people and exploited whole areas for their own financial gain.

The Supreme Assembly has therefore ruled this resolution unacceptable and in violation of its ideals of sovereignty, peace, and diplomacy. Should the fellow members of the international community adopt a resolution of aggression such as this, the Supreme Assembly of Sunimir regrets to inform fellow member states that Sunimir will be forced to resign from the UN and calls upon other peace-loving countries to do the same. Peace is not kept with threats of war, nor are political alliances made tighter by them.

Supreme Assembly of Sunimir General Secretary
The Honorable Farukh Al Bahrani
Precisely!

The mere fact that the United Nations, a diplomatic group of nations with the sole purpose of solving problems without war, is using the threat of unilateral and uncontrollable military action is alarming.

Another question that comes to mind is where will this military force, if necessary, come from? The U.N. member nations will be called on to provide military force, financial accountablility, and loss of its own citizens lives, to enforce a unilateral and non-controllable decision by the United Nations. This, as well as the feel of a "world government," now complete with military power, takes away from the sovereignty of any U.N. member nation.

The United Nations For Freedom & Security are completely for the protection of human rights; However the direct and without-caution threat of military force for those who do not obey them is completely out of hand and unacceptable.

In theory, the states in command of the commitee which determine what human rights violations are being commited and by who, can effectivly wage war on countries of their choosing merely by manipulating the system, and with no way for the U.N. members to counter-act this, without disobeying the resolution at hand, I am forced to say that the UNFSF and the United States of Antarism will be forced to vote against this resolution.

It's on the right track, and has the right theory in mind, but the implementation of it is just not quite correct yet.

The Supreme Assembly has therefore ruled this resolution unacceptable and in violation of its ideals of sovereignty, peace, and diplomacy... Peace is not kept with threats of war, nor are political alliances made tighter by them.


I would hardly call a state in which its own citizens are being slaughtered in masses "peace". If anything is unnacceptable, it is the practice of genocide, as the UN has shown with the passing of the Eon Convention on Genocide.

Furthermore, it is not this proposal which threatens "peace". If no genocide occurs, then no interventions need happen. The people who threaten peace are those who insist on killing thousands of their own citizens- they threaten internal peace and external peace. And this proposal aims to resolve this internal turmoil. So in fact, it does promote peace. It ends trouble already started, it doesn't start the trouble itself.

The mere fact that the United Nations, a diplomatic group of nations with the sole purpose of solving problems without war, is using the threat of unilateral and uncontrollable military action is alarming.

OOC: It happens in the real UN
IC: It only uses force as a very last resort when the atrocities occuring within a state are so intolerable that action must be taken. The UN's stance on genocide is clear. This proposal just advocates action over words.


Another question that comes to mind is where will this military force, if necessary, come from? The U.N. member nations will be called on to provide military force, financial accountablility, and loss of its own citizens lives, to enforce a unilateral and non-controllable decision by the United Nations. This, as well as the feel of a "world government," now complete with military power, takes away from the sovereignty of any U.N. member nation.


No, you have misunderstood. NO nation is obligated to do anything under this proposal. It is not a UN force who intervenes. Merely, the UN grants the right to a willing coalition of nations who already want to intervene. They take their case to the UN who decides if it is valid and offers guidelines and limitations on what they can and should aim to do. But if you don't want to intervene, no one is making you. No one is even asking you to.


The United Nations For Freedom & Security are completely for the protection of human rights; However the direct and without-caution threat of military force for those who do not obey them is completely out of hand and unacceptable.

Again, it is the genocide which is unacceptable. Without-caution? This proposal is the caution. It says "Be warned- if you insist on committing the atrocious act of genocide, there will be consequences- we won;t sit idly by and watch thousands or even millions of people be slaughtered".

Therefore, we determine that no budgetary nor legal changes are necessary for compliance with this proposal.


That is correct since no nation need do anything under this proposal. It merely gives a right to those who want to do something.

Here is my intended meaning of the proposal.


WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;
IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";


I.e. This proposal does not disregard sovereignty. It merely argues that in the very extreme cases of genocide or ethnic cleansing (which is defined in the Eon Convention) that sovereignty cannot be used as an argument against putting a stop to the genocide.


CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

Basically, genocide is unacceptable. We have all agreed on that in past resolutions. If a goverment is commiting genocide then it is an illegitimate government.


THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

This just means that in the case of genocide, a state committing it cannot hide behind national sovereignty and expect no consequences. The Eon Convention will punish them for it (if they are in the UN), while this proposal will put a physical end to the genocide.


CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation,

It cannot be a unilateral action, many states must agree that there is a justc ause for intervention here, and even then they need to go to the UN for authorisation. Proportionality refers to the concept that any intervention must not be excessive- it must only use as much force as is necessary to end the suffering, and no more. It must aim ONLY to end the genocide and restore order, and no more.


...aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Even here, some form of consent is required, arguably not breaking sovereignty then. But on the premise that a government committing genocide is an illegitimate government, it seeks consent not from that government, but from the people itself. So theoretically, if the people were quite happy with the genocide and didn't mind being killed, then there is no right to intervene in that case.

This clause also limits intervention to very extreme cases of human rights, pretty much restricted to genocide or ethnic cleansing. You can't invade for any human rights abuse, no matter how shocking you may find it. Only under these exceptional circumstances.


Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

Once a coaltion has decided it wants to act, and has formulated a plan for intervention and post-intervention operations, they must submit their case to the UN panel who will assess:
a) whether there is a valid claim to make an intervention
b) whether the plan of intervention conforms to the ideals of proportionality and intent, and whether it will cause the least amount of damage and do the most good. it will suggest alternative if need be, and will set targets/goals/deadlines/limits/guidelines as appropriate.
c) Whether there is enough commitment to post-intervention peacebuilding and state-rebuilding if required.

The resolution does not solely go after those nations commiting genocide and other serious acts of human rights violation.

It also targets nations commited "acts of torture, inhumane treatment, etc" with the same threat of military force or (I assume) economic sanctions.

What is normal and accepted by the people of a nation, may still be considered "torture" or "inhumane" by the U.N., thus overpowering the will of the nation and its people, which results in a lack of soveriegnty for all nations.

Let's talk hypothetically here.

A politically free, civil rights bearing, and democratic nation decides as a people to allow in-public executions, or in-public lashings.

The U.N. steps in and says this is inhumane or torture, and therefor takes action to "correct" the problem at hand -- and in the process of doing so completely over-rules the citizens themselves, for the mere purpose of "maintaining human rights."

Wouldn't the global police-like force that the U.N. would then become be an attack on human rights in itself? Afterall, it would be forcing its views on a population that clearly had the ability to choose its own fate and punishment for crime or law-disobedience.

To quote:
some form of consent is required, arguably not breaking sovereignty then.

When consent required is given by other nations, it breaks sovereignty by default. All member states, as well as Sunimir, are fully aware that some of their sovereignty is traded off in UN membership. On the other hand, "some form of consent" is a vague interpretation, and NOT sufficient for any type of military intervention. As stated before, whether it's unilateral action, bilateral, or trilateral, this resolution paves the way for vague interpretations of international law, by which the stronger forces within the UN seek so subdue the weaker by means of military force.

Furthermore, it makes it very evident that the UN would refocus from diplomatic measures to a legalized and formalized process of extrenally imposed horrors of war. War cannot be defined by a dry and institutionalized process of deduction by a small number of countries, and we find the prospects of such events terrifying, to say the least. It is as barbarric as it is offensive to all member states.

The Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda will vote against; not because this is a bad resolution - it is written well and with good intent - but because we disagree with the principle of using violence and millitairy threat. We support the idea that in case of violation of human rights, the population should be supported to they can solve the problems in their own way, from within. When to intervene from the outside is a thin line, and though the author has done their best to define that line and has made precautions, we still fear that this resolution might be open to abuse.

The Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda will vote against; not because this is a bad resolution - it is written well and with good intent - but because we disagree with the principle of using violence and millitairy threat. We support the idea that in case of violation of human rights, the population should be supported to they can solve the problems in their own way, from within. When to intervene from the outside is a thin line, and though the author has done their best to define that line and has made precautions, we still fear that this resolution might be open to abuse.

While I mostly agree, if twenty thousand unarmed people are being murdered every day, I think the odds of them solving the problems on their own are pretty small, if non-existant.

While I mostly agree, if twenty thousand unarmed people are being murdered every day, I think the odds of them solving the problems on their own are pretty small, if non-existant.That's completely true, but as I posted on the previous page, this doesn't solely apply to massive acts of genocide.


The resolution does not solely go after those nations commiting genocide and other serious acts of human rights violation.

It also targets nations commited "acts of torture, inhumane treatment, etc" with the same threat of military force or (I assume) economic sanctions.

What is normal and accepted by the people of a nation, may still be considered "torture" or "inhumane" by the U.N., thus overpowering the will of the nation and its people, which results in a lack of soveriegnty for all nations.

Let's talk hypothetically here.

A politically free, civil rights bearing, and democratic nation decides as a people to allow in-public executions, or in-public lashings.

The U.N. steps in and says this is inhumane or torture, and therefor takes action to "correct" the problem at hand -- and in the process of doing so completely over-rules the citizens themselves, for the mere purpose of "maintaining human rights."

Wouldn't the global police-like force that the U.N. would then become be an attack on human rights in itself? Afterall, it would be forcing its views on a population that clearly had the ability to choose its own fate and punishment for crime or law-disobedience.

Although our country strives to uphold human rights everywhere, we cannot except breaches of the sovreignty of other nation states.

We do not accept that certain "divine" nations have the right to depose leaders they see as unfit.

The removal of dictators should be a job for the people of that nation, and we will assist wherever we can, to that end.

However, this resolution is not the answer, so we have voted no.

The resolution does not solely go after those nations commiting genocide and other serious acts of human rights violation.

It also targets nations commited "acts of torture, inhumane treatment, etc" with the same threat of military force or (I assume) economic sanctions.


No, it is just comparing acts of ethnic cleasning to "inhumane treatment" and therefore outlawed. Only genocide or ethnic cleansing is covered.


A politically free, civil rights bearing, and democratic nation decides as a people to allow in-public executions, or in-public lashings.

The U.N. steps in and says this is inhumane or torture, and therefor takes action to "correct" the problem at hand -- and in the process of doing so completely over-rules the citizens themselves, for the mere purpose of "maintaining human rights."


That wouldn't happen for 2 reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, capital punishment wouldn't be considered as genocide, or even as mass extreme violation of human rights.

Secondly though, in this case, the majority of the nation are not against this act, and so there is no consent from the people, and tehrefore intervention would not be allowed.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea, although normally supporting such a human rights upholding, is steadfastly opposed to the aforementioned proposal.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea does not view this proposal as supporting Human Rights and upholding them, rather, it is seen as an attempt to control nations in that they are not allowed to choose what civil rights they give their people, nor will they be able to have a tyrannical government, as if this resolution is passed, the multilaterforce will be "aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale...."

Is it no longer the right of each individual nation to choose its style of government, that instead, we must be forced to maintain a non-despotic form of government, that we are no longer allowed to oppress our people without resigning from the United Nations? This proposal is blatantly stating that, no mater how bureaucratic the language is.

Secondly, the statement that a unilateral force be created is clearly a violation of the UN holding no standing military. Although the argument can be made that the intervention force is not of the UN, rather it is the alliance of nations supported by the UN, this is false. The fact that the UN would support such a force is clearly placing its own hand in this force, violating the UN's inability to hold a military force.

Thirdly, in ignoring the above arguments, if this proposal is passed, this intervention force would be used against nations committing extreme human rights violations. However, this proposal only applies to UN member nations, and therefore is irrelevant for nations committing such acts of violence or extreme human rights violations, as those nations would not be forced to adhere to this policy. As these nations do not adhere to this policy, the use of an intervention force is clearly an act of war instead of an attack supported by this proposal, because those nations are not required to enforce UN policy, as they are not UN members, and therefore, the enforcing of UN proposals to legalize a war by military action, is clearly AN ACT OF WAR.

OOC:This proposal is in clear violation of game mechanics because it is also, by allowing the use of an intervention force, clearly attempting to add a mechanism for military action against other nations. This clearly breaks the rules for UN proposals, as UN proposals may not be used to add new game mechanisms.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea, UN Delegate to The Holy Free State of Terra.

Esteemed delegate from Gwenstefani, incidentally, the country that proposed the abhorration we debate about, has made an interesting comment of teh background behind the resolution regarding public executions and lashings as measures of deterring crime.

And I quote: ...in this case, the majority of the nation are not against this act, and so there is no consent from the people, and tehrefore intervention would not be allowed.

Does the esteemed delegate truly suggest that the state of Gwenstefani is informed enough and authorized to speak on behalf of the "majority of nations"? Does the delegate suggest that it can offer all the other delegates an empty trinket suggesting that Gwenstefani knows best what the majority should think? How else are we to interpret this?

Esteemed delegates, ladies, gentlemen, General Secretary... This is blatant proof of the background of this resolution, and its intent to impose the will of the few upon the many, by means of military compulsion and bullying rarely seen in the civilized world. Let us turn it down for what it is, and perhaps a similar resolution can be introduced, which covers the issues supposedly covered by this one, but is a diplomatic one, instad of a cheap facade for the guntoating aggressive militarism that we can see today.

Our United Nations delegate has been instructed by the Chancellor of Williamus and by the High Assembly to vote against this resolution. The people of the Republic of Williamus are not prepared to endorse such draconian and over-arching legislation.

Every nation upon joining the United Nations realizes a degree of sovereignty is surrendered in order to enjoy the benefits of U.N. membership. Each nation must decide for itself how much of their own sovereignty it is willing to yield.

Sadly, this resolution is our "line in the sand." Should this resolution pass, the Republic of Williamus will, with regret, resign its membership in the United Nations and will urge other nations who share our commitment to the ideal of sovereignty to do the same.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea, although normally supporting such a human rights upholding, is steadfastly opposed to the aforementioned proposal.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea does not view this proposal as supporting Human Rights and upholding them, rather, it is seen as an attempt to control nations in that they are not allowed to choose what civil rights they give their people, nor will they be able to have a tyrannical government, as if this resolution is passed, the multilaterforce will be "aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale...."

Is it no longer the right of each individual nation to choose its style of government, that instead, we must be forced to maintain a non-despotic form of government, that we are no longer allowed to oppress our people without resigning from the United Nations? This proposal is blatantly stating that, no mater how bureaucratic the language is.

Secondly, the statement that a unilateral force be created is clearly a violation of the UN holding no standing military. Although the argument can be made that the intervention force is not of the UN, rather it is the alliance of nations supported by the UN, this is false. The fact that the UN would support such a force is clearly placing its own hand in this force, violating the UN's inability to hold a military force.

Thirdly, in ignoring the above arguments, if this proposal is passed, this intervention force would be used against nations committing extreme human rights violations. However, this proposal only applies to UN member nations, and therefore is irrelevant for nations committing such acts of violence or extreme human rights violations, as those nations would not be forced to adhere to this policy. As these nations do not adhere to this policy, the use of an intervention force is clearly an act of war instead of an attack supported by this proposal, because those nations are not required to enforce UN policy, as they are not UN members, and therefore, the enforcing of UN proposals to legalize a war by military action, is clearly AN ACT OF WAR.

OOC:This proposal is in clear violation of game mechanics because it is also, by allowing the use of an intervention force, clearly attempting to add a mechanism for military action against other nations. This clearly breaks the rules for UN proposals, as UN proposals may not be used to add new game mechanisms.

The Holy Empire of Nichaemea, UN Delegate to The Holy Free State of Terra.

Very good points!

Is it no longer the right of each individual nation to choose its style of government, that instead, we must be forced to maintain a non-despotic form of government, that we are no longer allowed to oppress our people without resigning from the United Nations? This proposal is blatantly stating that, no mater how bureaucratic the language is.


Aww, poor dictators. Not allowed to commit genocide anymore... spoils all the fun.. Seriously, genocide is already illegal. but this resolution puts a stop it. when it happens.


Secondly, the statement that a unilateral force be created is clearly a violation of the UN holding no standing military. Although the argument can be made that the intervention force is not of the UN, rather it is the alliance of nations supported by the UN, this is false. The fact that the UN would support such a force is clearly placing its own hand in this force, violating the UN's inability to hold a military force.


No, there would be no unilateral force. There would be mulitilateral forces, consisting of several states' armies, not a UN army.


Thirdly, in ignoring the above arguments, if this proposal is passed, this intervention force would be used against nations committing extreme human rights violations. However, this proposal only applies to UN member nations, and therefore is irrelevant for nations committing such acts of violence or extreme human rights violations, as those nations would not be forced to adhere to this policy. As these nations do not adhere to this policy, the use of an intervention force is clearly an act of war instead of an attack supported by this proposal, because those nations are not required to enforce UN policy, as they are not UN members, and therefore, the enforcing of UN proposals to legalize a war by military action, is clearly AN ACT OF WAR.

This proposal renders interventions on non-un members who commit genocide legitimate. No, by all means, non-un members do not need to obey the non-genocide law. However, it doens't mean we can't intervene if they do. Member states and non-un member states have to interact all the time, and it should be a good thing that this proposal is trying to regulate some aspects of that. Even if only the un members have to adhere to it. This proposal has no impact on non-un members directly, and it does not require them to do anything.

[quote]
OOC:This proposal is in clear violation of game mechanics because it is also, by allowing the use of an intervention force, clearly attempting to add a mechanism for military action against other nations. This clearly breaks the rules for UN proposals, as UN proposals may not be used to add new game mechanisms. [/end quote]

No, it is not against game mechanics. Firstly, it would not have gottne this far if it was. Secondly, it is purely a role-play thing. Role play is allowed.

Our United Nations delegate has been instructed by the Chancellor of Williamus and by the High Assembly to vote against this resolution. The people of the Republic of Williamus are not prepared to endorse such draconian and over-arching legislation.

Every nation upon joining the United Nations realizes a degree of sovereignty is surrendered in order to enjoy the benefits of U.N. membership. Each nation must decide for itself how much of their own sovereignty it is willing to yield.

Sadly, this resolution is our "line in the sand." Should this resolution pass, the Republic of Williamus will, with regret, resign its membership in the United Nations and will urge other nations who share our commitment to the ideal of sovereignty to do the same.

So - just so as I understand this - you are defending the right of nations to commit genocide on the basis that it is a national sovereignty issue?

[QUOTE=Sunimir]Esteemed delegate from Gwenstefani, incidentally, the country that proposed the abhorration we debate about, has made an interesting comment of teh background behind the resolution regarding public executions and lashings as measures of deterring crime.

And I quote: ...in this case, the majority of the nation are not against this act, and so there is no consent from the people, and tehrefore intervention would not be allowed.

Does the esteemed delegate truly suggest that the state of Gwenstefani is informed enough and authorized to speak on behalf of the "majority of nations"? Does the delegate suggest that it can offer all the other delegates an empty trinket suggesting that Gwenstefani knows best what the majority should think? How else are we to interpret this?

QUOTE]

I was referring to the example you made of capital punishment, I was tlaking about the scenario in which people supported the act (of capital punishment) NOT THIS RESOLUTION. Please read what I say before you over-react.

Our United Nations delegate has been instructed by the Chancellor of Williamus and by the High Assembly to vote against this resolution. The people of the Republic of Williamus are not prepared to endorse such draconian and over-arching legislation.

Every nation upon joining the United Nations realizes a degree of sovereignty is surrendered in order to enjoy the benefits of U.N. membership. Each nation must decide for itself how much of their own sovereignty it is willing to yield.

Sadly, this resolution is our "line in the sand." Should this resolution pass, the Republic of Williamus will, with regret, resign its membership in the United Nations and will urge other nations who share our commitment to the ideal of sovereignty to do the same.


So many people seem to see this as too much of an intrusion into national sovereignty.

BUT
there is only intervention where genocide is occurring. And for UN members that shouldn;t be a problem- you're not supposed to be doing that anyway.

Again, esteemed delegate wishes to misguide our attention, I'm afraid. The resolution states in no vague terms that militarily enforced regime change (in more common terms, "WAR") is aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*.

Seing as how tyranny is defined as:

a) A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
b) The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
...
e) Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.


Are we to buy into the explanations of the delegate? Let us not be deluded by misguiding explanations, esteemed colleagues. If all tyrannies face military attacks by their neighbors in the name of the UN and with the blessing of the UN, we will not allow ourselves to be tainted by membership in the organization. Imposing models of government is something the UN does not, I'm afraid, have power over, nor is it in any way connected to the goals it claims to fight for.

So - just so as I understand this - you are defending the right of nations to commit genocide on the basis that it is a national sovereignty issue?


As well as the concerns cited by my esteemed colleagues who are far more eloquent than I.

Aww, poor dictators. Not allowed to commit genocide anymore... spoils all the fun.. Seriously, genocide is already illegal. but this resolution puts a stop it. when it happens.

Although I feel personally attacked by this statement, I will ignore it. But what about the dictatorship nations' feelings? For instance, The People's Republic of Kolikoi, a dictatorship state within my region, is vehemently opposed to the proposal because it feels threatened by the proposal if it passes, that it is forcing a non-dictatorship form of government upon him. Why should he feel threatened if he "oppresses his people"? He should be allowed to decide how he wishes to govern to his government.

For instance, if the Nation of Kolikoi wanted to perform a "colonoscopy" (invade) on the Nation of Quiarta, and he had a valid reason, I'd support it. As long as those mechanisms were in the game. However, if Quiarta is determined by a UN world court to be "violating people's rights," I say Kolikoi has all legal right to perform that damned colonoscopy. However, if Quiarta is not a UN nation, and Kolikoi performs a colonoscopy on Quiarta unter the idea he is legally allowed by this UN proposal, I view that as an act of war because Quiarta cannot legally have a colonoscopy performed on them by anyone adhering to UN resolutions, as Quiarta does not have to adhere to the same resolutions.

Nations are entitled to oppress their people as they please. THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO LIMIT THIS TOTALLY BY STATING THAT NATIONS WITH POOR CIVIL RIGHTS SHALL BE "INTERVENED UPON" BY THE UN. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO VALID REASON UNDER THIS PROPOSAL TO "INTERVENE UPON" NATION WITH A DICTATORSHIP FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THIS PROPOSAL IS CLEARLY TRYING TO LIMIT THE CHOICES A NATION HAS WHEN DECIDING UPON ISSUES AND ITS OWN PERSONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

OOC:Secondly, if this "intervention" is RPing, like you say, don't put it in UN proposals. PLEASE. It screws things up. RPing is for the forums, not the UN proposals.

This is absurd! This gives the UN sovereignty - it gives them Authority over your own government.

By passing this resolution the UN is granting itself power, even authority, to invade a state, even when it poses no threat to themselves. You will be willingly handing over power to a body with its own intentions. For as long as they have this authority each member stands to loose their power.

The UN was set up to bring about peace, to allow a new channel of communication between all nations - and now it is war mongering!

This resolution will mean that invasion would be imminent if a policemen beats up a rapist. I for one will not stand this; I urge everyone to vote against this resolution. If our numbers should fail us, I will resign from the UN rather than witness this embarrasing display of centralisation to a foreign body.

This is absurd! This gives the UN sovereignty - it gives them Authority over your own government.

By passing this resolution the UN is granting itself power, even authority, to invade a state, even when it poses no threat to themselves. You will be willingly handing over power to a body with its own intentions. For as long as they have this authority each member stands to loose their power.

The UN was set up to bring about peace, to allow a new channel of communication between all nations - and now it is war mongering!

This resolution will mean that invasion would be imminent if a policemen beats up a rapist. I for one will not stand this; I urge everyone to vote against this resolution. If our numbers should fail us, I will resign from the UN rather than witness this embarrasing display of centralisation to a foreign body.
the UN won't invade anybody, since he has no army.
for the other part, I don't understand every part and detail in the resolution (although it looked good to me), but maybe you just discover the great plan to conquer the UN and rule by his power on all the world. in this case I will propose you to hide before some countries invade you as the one who try to fail the plan.

Indeed. Surely, we will take the delegate of Green Israel on his word and follow blindly, as he represents a world superpower of over 1.5 billion people. Of course we will not dare question the resolution, for why would we? After tyrannies (note - legitimate form of government) are invaded militarily, we suppose republic and theocracies will be next, and finally, we are sure the lovely superpowers will (after bombing us to shreds) contribute to our economies and infrastructure, in return for military bases on our "authonomous" soil, their products in our stores, and syphoning of our natural resources. One must wonder if he walked into the wrong assembly, this sounds less and less like the UN we signed up for willingly.

I decided against this. There's no stopgap preventing nations from simply employing military force, instead of trying diplomacy first.

The evidence for grave violations of human rights should be fairly apparent, and while the flag could arguably be raised by any nation, evidence will in fact come from two main sources: either the people of the state themselves, asking for outside help or protection from their own government; or secondly, from independent bodies such as Amnesty International, etc, i.e. international human rights organisations, who should have no vested interests.

As for using humanitarian grounds as a pretext for invading for less honourable reasons, that is why the proposal has stipulated that any action must both be a multilateral, never unilateral, action, and must always be authorised by the UN. Since the UN does not serve the interests of any one state or nation, and works on a system of impartiality, this should reduce the problem of vested interests.

I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask more or for further clarification.


You are all mad!

This resolution would give the UN unchecked authority to change the very nature of member nation's governments.

If two dictatorships claim falsely that a neighboring nation is viciously oppressing its citizens, and a foreign-supported insurgency within that nation makes the same claim, then the two dictatorships and a few of their allies can use this as a pretext for invading and conquering the neighboring nation- all with the UN's blessing.

This resolution should be rejected outright. A future resolution with checks and balances and verification built into the proposal could reasonably be put forward and voted upon, but not this bureaucratic abomination. Allowing this resolution to pass would irrevocably demolish the sovereign rights of governments to manage their own affairs. Under this resolution, any combination of hostile nations who happened to be UN members could invoke "humanitarian grounds" and invade any other nation at their whim.

I will give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that these concerns simply did not occur during the writing of this resolution. The author doubtless had the best of intentions.

But we all know the destination of the highway paved with good intentions.

Which of you will be first to fall victim to your neighbors under this resolution?

Which of you will be first to take advantage of the carte blanche this resolution gives to wage war?

I have just read all the posts in this thread and I have seen a disturbing pattern emerge from it. Many nations have posted their concern that the basis for military action is much to low, consiting merely of "ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale". The term tyranny is particularly troubling since it is a very vague word. However, every time the nation of Gwenstefani responds to these concerns, they merely mention that the resolution is purely to end genocide or ethnic cleansing. I ask the nation of Gwenstefani why, if ending genocide truly is the only purpose of the the proposal, doesn't the proposal ONLY specifically mention genocide? This vague wording of the proposal makes my nation fearful that there is a more incidious purpose.

Another concern that many nations share is the low requirements to "proving" a civil rights violation. Only two nations need to bring forth the accusations (laughing referred to as a "coalition"). These accusations are reviewed by a panel of nations that have asserted power without being voted in by all UN nations. They will furthermore be advised by "experts" that are beholden to no interest but their own. If the panel accepts the claims of the 2 nations, then the accused country will have no recourse to argue their case.

For these reasons, my nation must vehemently oppose this proposition.

The principle is fine, in principle

But in practice, the powerful nations will invade who they choose when they choose; this just gives them a fig leaf to hide behind.

People have free will;

Truly free nations do not need this resolution to act righteously; if a nation acts in accordance with these priniples, and has as its principal reason for invading a principality the defence of human rights, the UN can choose not to condemn.

The absence of this resolution does not prevent nations from doing good; the presence of this resolution may allow nations to do harm.

Azruban is opposed

Once again the UNs top priority will be human rights, and catching those that violate those rights to be held in the utmost contempt. As stated in the new proposal, there are already 3 similar resoultions, but it seems they aren't clear enough, so we will have the 4th installment that is sure to pass easily by the nations of the world.
It is this writters opinon that the UN must tighten regulations on what may or may not be proposed for a vote by the nations of the world. Ther are aspects of this resoultion that call for some major changes in the operation of many governments.


RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power


So in essence, if you're a dictatorship, the world is going to come after you. Granted not many dictatorships are in the UN, but still, this is the major flaw with this resoultion.
So I would have to say no on this resoultion, we have enough like it, and see no reason why we should continue to beat this worn out horse.

Lux Aorta

Clear violation of member nation soverienty. preposterus.

Clear violation of member nation soverienty. preposterus.

So again I am forced to ask the question - you truly believe that a member nation can hide behind "national sovereignty" when they are committing genocide?

Just out of curiousity, am I the only person to have read this?

Yes - two nations (GeminiLand and LeoLand) could get together to say a third nation (TilEnca) is committing mass human rights abuses (which may or may not be true, but given my record I would say it isn't).

But then they take it before The Pretenama Panel. For those of you who don't know what that is, and you should read The Eon Convention to get a better idea, it is a panel made up of 30 representatives from FIFTEEN nations. So now it is not just GeminiLand and LeoLand that have to lie, it is fifteen other nations (optionally 13 if Gemini and LeoLand are included, but as the accusers they would not generally be so) have to be co-erced in to doing this. And by the terms of the convention that is 30 independent people who are acceptable to both sides.

Only when that happens can TilEnca be invaded and occupied by this multinational force.

So for all of you who have fears that it could be one or two nations abusing this to invade another, I suggest you read it again. The leaders of GeminiLand and LeoLand can not invade under cover of this proposal without getting approval from fifteen other nations, all of whom will have to see the claims before they do. So execution would not be a just cause (most likely), neither would a dictator ruling in the way dictators rule. But a dictator killing every single Christian in his nation just because they are Christian - that would probably be just cause.

Seriously - re-read it. Then read The EON Convention to see how The Panel operates.

I think this is a well written, well thought out and over all good proposal that will allow nations to put a stop to mass slaughter and ethnic clensing (sp?) and hopefully make the world a better place.

And given that two people have so far said genocide should be protected by national sovereignty, I think the world could stand to be a better place :}

Just out of curiousity, am I the only person to have read this?

Yes - two nations (GeminiLand and LeoLand) could get together to say a third nation (TilEnca) is committing mass human rights abuses (which may or may not be true, but given my record I would say it isn't).

But then they take it before The Pretenama Panel. For those of you who don't know what that is, and you should read The Eon Convention to get a better idea, it is a panel made up of 30 representatives from FIFTEEN nations. So now it is not just GeminiLand and LeoLand that have to lie, it is fifteen other nations (optionally 13 if Gemini and LeoLand are included, but as the accusers they would not generally be so) have to be co-erced in to doing this. And by the terms of the convention that is 30 independent people who are acceptable to both sides.

Only when that happens can TilEnca be invaded and occupied by this multinational force.

So for all of you who have fears that it could be one or two nations abusing this to invade another, I suggest you read it again. The leaders of GeminiLand and LeoLand can not invade under cover of this proposal without getting approval from fifteen other nations, all of whom will have to see the claims before they do. So execution would not be a just cause (most likely), neither would a dictator ruling in the way dictators rule. But a dictator killing every single Christian in his nation just because they are Christian - that would probably be just cause.

Seriously - re-read it. Then read The EON Convention to see how The Panel operates.

I think this is a well written, well thought out and over all good proposal that will allow nations to put a stop to mass slaughter and ethnic clensing (sp?) and hopefully make the world a better place.

And given that two people have so far said genocide should be protected by national sovereignty, I think the world could stand to be a better place :}

An issue with your case...suppose TilEnca will not let inspectors in...under international law they do not have to...what does this propsed resolution say about it? I have read this several times, and can not see any reason why a nation would submit to having inspectors come in, under the pretense of "making sure everyting is alright". This just opens up a power struggle between the UN and the very nations that support it. Corruption is another factor to enter into the equasion. If Gemini and LeoLand decide that they really want to go through with the invasion of TilEnca, what is to stop these two nations from offering trade agreements, military assistance, prostetutes, etc., to get what they want? I would like to see that added as well into the resolution.

No, it is just comparing acts of ethnic cleasning to "inhumane treatment" and therefore outlawed. Only genocide or ethnic cleansing is covered.

Your own resolution doesn't agree with this. It states:

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

The very wording of the resolution says outright it covers more than those. Please, be familiar with your own resolution if you are going to argue for it.

That wouldn't happen for 2 reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, capital punishment wouldn't be considered as genocide, or even as mass extreme violation of human rights.

Okay. I'm invading and putting your people to death for various criminal actions under DLE law. By this arguement, no one can do anything about it.

Keep in mind that, in real life, the Jews of the Halocaust were viewed as criminals by the Nazis.

Secondly though, in this case, the majority of the nation are not against this act, and so there is no consent from the people, and tehrefore intervention would not be allowed.

Once again, not supported by international law. If he chooses to invade you, there is nothing on the UN books that forbids it.

Aww, poor dictators. Not allowed to commit genocide anymore... spoils all the fun.. Seriously, genocide is already illegal. but this resolution puts a stop it. when it happens.

That statement alone is quite insulting to those of us who work hard on the issue of advancing nations. Being a dictatorship doesn't mean I have to be evil.

Ah, screw it. You have 5 hours to prepare your nation for full orbital bombardment. If your people are exterminated as a result of said orbital bombardment, it's your fault for not getting them to safety. And by safety, I mean outside your nation.

If all tyrannies face military attacks by their neighbors in the name of the UN and with the blessing of the UN, we will not allow ourselves to be tainted by membership in the organization.

There's the door. Feel free to slam it on your way out.

Dictatorship or not, we still do not respond well to people using such threats. You're given no special treatment just because you brought up a valid concern.

So for all of you who have fears that it could be one or two nations abusing this to invade another, I suggest you read it again. The leaders of GeminiLand and LeoLand can not invade under cover of this proposal without getting approval from fifteen other nations, all of whom will have to see the claims before they do.

If those 15 nations happen to be friends of the invaders or intimidated by them (I could take out most Earth nations alone with ease, so I know there have to be Earth nations that can effectively bully a couple dozen large nations at once), the panel will likely agree. About the only way you can prevent that is to have nations such as my own and those I am friendly with on the panel, and we both know that automatically biases it.

In the issue of genocide, it was fine. In this issue, it creates a system any one of us can, with the right preparation, abuse to be rid of nations we don't like. Hell, the requirement of who has to be on the panel just to prevent intimidation of the panel nations alone automatically biases the panel in a certain direction.

I call for all nations to strike down this resolution... This resolution has a good intent to help mankind throughout the world but this is not UN's right to make. This resolution will undermine the government of the region and will have to abide by the UN and neighboring nations judgement. If you would like to keep your nation free and under your control then strike this UN resolution down.

Actually, this is precisely what the UN should do, coordinating nations to get something done. However, having just studied WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles in my history class(great timing, huh?), I do have reservations that my troops may be used in a way that my nation does not approve of if I'm bringing up a case, such as killing innocents. I want to be able to control my troops wothout interference.

An issue with your case...suppose TilEnca will not let inspectors in...under international law they do not have to...what does this propsed resolution say about it? I have read this several times, and can not see any reason why a nation would submit to having inspectors come in, under the pretense of "making sure everyting is alright". This just opens up a power struggle between the UN and the very nations that support it. Corruption is another factor to enter into the equasion. If Gemini and LeoLand decide that they really want to go through with the invasion of TilEnca, what is to stop these two nations from offering trade agreements, military assistance, prostetutes, etc., to get what they want? I would like to see that added as well into the resolution.

Even if such protections are added, it is not beyond reason those things could be done in secret.

Also there is nothing to stop Gemini and LeoLand just invading anyway.

The point is this proposal resolution provides a proper framework for stopping genocides and other such problems. And it does it in a suitable manner that, while it is not impossible to circumvent, makes it pretty hard to do so.

Although I feel personally attacked by this statement, I will ignore it. But what about the dictatorship nations' feelings? For instance, The People's Republic of Kolikoi, a dictatorship state within my region, is vehemently opposed to the proposal because it feels threatened by the proposal if it passes, that it is forcing a non-dictatorship form of government upon him. Why should he feel threatened if he "oppresses his people"? He should be allowed to decide how he wishes to govern to his government.


But as the proposal states, any intervention requries the consent of the people. If the nation is happy with the genocide or tryanny it faces, then there is no problem. Genocide or tyranny they shall have! And no intervention is allowed. It is only if these things are against the will of the people, and lets face it, when will genocide be approved of??? that intervention can occur!

It's a simple point, I feel, but so many people seem to be missing it. MAybe if I put it in RED!

This resolution will mean that invasion would be imminent if a policemen beats up a rapist. I for one will not stand this; I urge everyone to vote against this resolution. If our numbers should fail us, I will resign from the UN rather than witness this embarrasing display of centralisation to a foreign body.

You people are going to drive me insane!! What part of this don't you understand.

Intervention is allowed only in the case of extreme and mass violations of human rights. By this I mean: GENOCIDE or ETHNIC CLEANSING.

Not a policeman beating up a racist. Not illegal prostitution. Not the death penalty. Just GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING.

Am is saying it the wrong way? How can I make this clear???? Someone help???

If two dictatorships claim falsely that a neighboring nation is viciously oppressing its citizens, and a foreign-supported insurgency within that nation makes the same claim, then the two dictatorships and a few of their allies can use this as a pretext for invading and conquering the neighboring nation- all with the UN's blessing.


No, because they still have to go the UN panel and have their grounds, aims and means tested and approved before any "blessing" is given.


Under this resolution, any combination of hostile nations who happened to be UN members could invoke "humanitarian grounds" and invade any other nation at their whim.


No, not on any whim. AGAIN, only if *shouts* GENOCIDE IS OCCURRING!!!!

Oooh, I'm going to have fun with this...

You people are going to drive me insane!! What part of this don't you understand.

Intervention is allowed only in the case of extreme and mass violations of human rights. By this I mean: GENOCIDE or ETHNIC CLEANSING.

Not a policeman beating up a racist. Not illegal prostitution. Not the death penalty. Just GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING.

Am is saying it the wrong way? How can I make this clear???? Someone help???

Try having the resolution say it's just genocide and ethnic cleansing. As it is, your own resolution doesn't agree with you. I've already posted the evidence.

No, not on any whim. AGAIN, only if *shouts* GENOCIDE IS OCCURRING!!!!

Contradicts previous post and is not supported by the resolution in question.

TilEnca- just a BIG BIIIIIIG thankyou for getting me, and proving to myself that I am not going insane.

And to everyone else, on any edit possible I will remove reference to tyranny since genocide is my main concern and I definitely want to see that passed.

HOWEVER, i don't have an issue with tyranny being there. If it is truly a benevolent tyranny (if that's possible) then the people of that nation wouold be happy with it, and therefore would not provide consent for any intervention. But if they were unhappy, and were crying for outside help to remove the tyrannical oppression (aka intervention) then so be it, if it goes through the correct channels.

And it doesn't need to. As pointed out, there is nothing to stop any nation from doing this anyway, WITHOUT any limitations and guidelines.

This proposal tries to make sure it is done in a regulated and ethical way. Really, you should prefer this to an unregulated intervention.

Gewstefani, that still doesn't answer the questions I brought up at the bottom of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8164025&postcount=119) post.

Unregulated, the possibility of abuse was there. Regulated, it becomes worse.

TilEnca- just a BIG BIIIIIIG thankyou for getting me, and proving to myself that I am not going insane.


(grin) Given the amount of people who considered that executing one criminal for murder would be grounds to bring up a government under The Eon Convention, I can understand why so many people are misinterpretting this. And given that I am (not the sole, but the main) architect of The Pretenama Panel, I thought that explaining how it works would be of use :}

I completely support this proposal, and would be glad to give it any support I can, both here and on any external boards I sometimes frequent.

(OOC)
But - and this will sound like somewhat of a cop-out - we have customers coming in to work next week, and a lot of my time is being dedicated to making sure that goes perfectly as a lot of the company's future might be influenced by those two days. And, of course, my beloved Amy is coming down next week, so the odds of me participating at all after Wednesday are very, very small.

But I promise I will do what I can, even if it means asking the same questions over and over again until I just want to beat people over the head with the text of the proposal!

Although it seems that this proposal is going to pass with or without my vote, I have 1 major concearn with your human rights issue. What exactly encompesses human rights? I feel you should have explained in more detail your understanding of human rights. Does this mean that we all have to accept and embrace homosexual mariage, abortion rights, drugs, prostitution, etc. because a person (nation) believes it is an essential part of their rights as humans.

This had to be explained in more detail on your part. Therefore, I have no choice but to reject your proposal at this time. I do not know if you were trying to camouflauge this issue by saying as little as possible on human rights and by diverting the majority to the issues of genocide and tyranny. I also have noticed that your nation is in the region named: Gay. Which leads me to further doubts of your true intentions. This is a thin line I am not willing to cross.

Sorry if I have missunderstood your proposal. GOD bless!

To the members of the United Nations:

Human rights and the goal of humanitarian groups are usually good causes; however, this resolution goes beyond just trying to expand human rights. By that I mean that this resolution uses military power instead of diplomacy to get its job done! This is no different than a excuse for using force against other nations. This is one of the oldest tricks in the books! Yes, people are coming in as humanitarians, but bring weapons with they? What kind of message is this resolution trying to give? If we go back in history, people will call these "humanitarians" imperialists! Unless the military threat clause is removed from this resolution, I will have to vote against it. And I sincerely hope that everyone understands the underline of this resolution is not just human rights, but military expansionism!

Like a protester might say, "Take your spheres of influence some where else!"

I feel bad for Gwenstefani, because I am sure that the nation crafted the proposal with good intentions, but I am also extremly frustrated with the framer being unable to see the flaws in the proposal. The fact that so many nations are able to see blatant loopholes in the proposal should be proof enough that the proposal is to vaguely written. I would have supported the resolution if it was only about genocide and ethnic cleansing, but for some reason the framer decided to include "tyranny" and "extreme human rights violations". These loaded words can and WILL be vaguely interpreted by rival nations. Gwenstefani usually answers this allegation by proposing that the Pretenama Panel will not fall for false claims by rival nations. However, the Pretenama Panel are not Gods, and there is no guarantee that mistakes will not be made. This is exacerbated by the complete lack of the accused nation to defend themself. No where in the proposal does it state how an accused nation can defend allegations, and I believe that they will be found guilty without being given that opportunity. Another point Gwenstefani likes to bring up is that the UN will not intervene without the support of the rouge nations people. But what about rival factions in a nation that will falsely claim genocide in order to gain control of the country? And what about rival nations falsely claiming to be speaking for the citizens of another nation? This proposal has too many loopholes and frightening consequences to be passed.

I'm sorry, but I am not satisfied with the responses to my concerns about potential abuse of process.

I cannot support this resolution.

As of this message, the vote of Krioval, as Regional Delegate of Chaotica, has been rescinded. Due to the controversy surrounding this matter, it will be referred to a full regional vote for approval or dismissal. Naturally, we harbor no illusions that our decision will affect the ultimate fate of this resolution, but that we, as a nation and a region, must vote our conscience, and not blindly approve any resolution that will supposedly benefit human rights.

OOC: I agree with what many are posting here. The resolution is too loosely worded in some places. Tighten up the language to include only "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", and it gets an automatic pass...by me, at least.

The Armed Republic of Acolytia will not support this resolution, and neither will any of our fledgling region of Ithia. We believe this is an attempt by the UN to over extend their power into sovereign nations for very loosely defined terms to be taken advantage of by over zealous power and resource hungry nations.

My government would like to apologize for the lateness of its official statement on this resolution, however, due to extensive involvement in a number of international matters our Office of International Affairs has been somewhat overwhelmed as of late.

However, after having analyzed (i.e. read in full) the text, the Council of Mayors would like it noted in the official record that the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has cast its vote in favour of the Humanitarian Intervention resolution.

The reasoning for our strong support is simply as follows. The resolution specifically mentioned several existing UN resolutions to which my government maintains which as fundamental human rights and/or principals relating to sovereignty form the core principals behind democratic rule. By having voted in favour of many of these principals in the past, it seems only appropriate to reiterate Mikitivity's resolve in these issues.

Futhermore, as a firm supporter of humanitarian aid and the furtherment of Democracy, the Confederated City States feels that it is our obligation to stand with other democratic socities, as called for by this resolution.

My government would like to thank the nations involved in the drafting and revision of this resolution.

For the love of, I get my attention pulled away by RL, the repeal I'm planning and some Regional matters, and this turns up at open vote. Why the feck does it always happen when ...

I shal avoid my inner urge to post " WOT DA FOK JOO TINK JOO DOIN FOO ! " to the U.N. here and rather, try to make clear why I'm thinking " WOT DA FOK JOO TINK JOO DOIN FOO ! " here. By the usual quote and cut method, of course.

Humanitarian InterventionLike AA Interventions ?

" Barry, I think you have an " opress the people " addiction and we all need to talk about that together, now "

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : GwenstefaniThat is that, now onto business.Description : WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;We are going to completely ignore that, aren't we ? Its like saying " Oh my god, I just remembered there is a barrier at the end of this track that prevents people from the high way this trail connects to from coming down here " only to go full speed ahead and ram it full on, blasting the barrier to bits and denting your car something awful. Not to mention letting every tosser and his town-car down the track onto crown lands. Or something such as.IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";Yes. But as we all know, the U.N. who makes the International Law all U.N. BLOODY MEMBER NATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO ( More on that story after this ) ... must not contradict itself with, errr, laws that contradict each other so ...

Oh, wait. It seems some one forgot that golden rule. Oh dear, and now I think we are going to run helter-skelter into illegality. My, oh, my.CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

REALITY CHECK : " accountable by the law " means for the Nation States U.N. that ALL U.N. MEMBER NATIONS AUTOMATICALLY COMPLY AND MAY NOT DEVIATE FROM PASSED U.N. LAW IN THE FORM OF THESE RESOLUTIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN OTHER U.N. NATIONS CAN AUTOMATICALLY GANG UP ON EACH OTHER OR NON-MEMBER NATIONS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOMP AROUND WITH MACHINE GUNS AND THOSE LITTLE WHITE HELMETS.

This is a game rule, not some pissy player made legislation.

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,Not really all that correct. The primary reason of states and their governments is to govern said states via the means of the governments choice.ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.Yes, but it doesn't actually say it violates human rights in that clause, it just defines it as a " heinous crime " and so on, in that. You just assume that.THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;Of course technically, you can't really violate THIS international law, by which I mean laws passed by THIS U.N. which is the N.S.U.N.

Unlike the Real Life U.N. compliance here is MANDATORY for all MEMBER states.

And now for the bit that really does piss me off beyond usual measure. I'm actually getting close to wanting to crack some skull with my crimson frying-pan of doom here, people.CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*,The N.S.U.N. may not target individual states in its legislation or actions. Whether they are members or not. In fact, this legislation implies it can " strike at " non-members which it bloody well may not, might I add.welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)While your at it, maybe you should define human rights violations first. Else you, and of course, we will face the : " OH GOD GOOD, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BY OR SELL OR CONSUME RANDOM SODA PRODUCT " A " IN THIS COUNTRY ! This is an out-rage ! I'm calling the U.N. ! " style of arguments to cause Havok willy nilly.

See my point ? For the love of god, does some one see my point ?

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention.The U.N. is not here so random newbie members can clog up the U.N. forum with " ME AN MAH FRIEND WANNA INVADE THIS GUY CAUSE LIKE HE'S CALLED US POO POO HEADS AND WE LIKE THINK HE'S A BAD GUY TO HIS PEOPLE N YEAH, THAT'LL DO ! ". Because this is what we are going to end up with to some degree. Considering at time of writing over 4 thousand people are voting yes on this, I can't help but think that is a potential 4 thousand ignorant people posting here already.

AND AGAIN, THIS U.N. CANNOT SANCTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. BECAUSE ALL U.N. LAWS ARE MANDATORY TO COMPLY WITH.The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,)Well, if there is such a panel which is technically an NPC entity used for RP purposes then I can okay-o this bit, at least.but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate.Cannot form nor mandate formation of such a panel which would need to utilise this forum to communicate on. May mandate NPC panels and commities only under current rules.The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions.Covered this, can't be done, moving on.Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.No, no and no.

I am now going to read this thread from start to end again to see if I can work out how the hell this got so far.Votes For: 4,027

Votes Against: 1,540I despair for humanity. I really do.

I mean, sure, I understand a lot of this could be good for Role Play in NS or II, but honestly, it breaks most of the rules to do it. And that is no excuse. And while I appreciate the good intentions no doubt of the author, I'm still going to fight to have it cut down because of the realities and flaws I've high-lighted.

The Libertarian Utopia of Cabinia finds itself in the unusual position of supporting this UN resolution. We applaud the efforts of the authors to make participation in such an intervention voluntary.

Komokom: Since the UN has no regulatory power over non-UN states, this resolution cannot be invoked against them. Since no UN nation could possibly commit such atrocities, due to forced compliance to pre-existing resolutions covering this area, this resolution cannot be invoked against them. In essence, there are NO gameplay ramifications to this measure, and your strident objections can be filed under T for "tempest in a teacup."

From The Desk of Queen Wyntarra Siddiah:

i am kinda leaning towards voting for this resolution, and here is why....


i once dated a guy from Sudan....he used to tell me some of the most horrific tales of what went on there...STILL goes on there......he told me that since all of the young and middle aged men have left to join the fight against the enemy, they left the old men and the women n children alone, practically defenseless........that the soldiers of the enemy will go into these poor villages and rape the women and young girls and sometimes even the boys and they would make the elderly men watch as it happened n them destroy their eyes or even castrate them or both and that they would rape the new mothers n then cut off her breasts so she could not nurse her screaming baby and tear her up inside with broken glass bottles or even the barrels of their riffles or whatever they could find, n that sometimes they would even smash in the heads of the babies n the toddlers n then as if all that was not enough, they would even steal the boys who were around the ages of 10-13 to make them fight for them n train them to be like them.....n any boys left who were older than 13 were shot n killed on the spot then they would take all the livestock n grains n other foods the village had n leave the survivors to deal the best they could.....whole villages have been wiped out by these kinds of raids.....n i cried so hard when he used to tell me these things n i would have thought him a liar except i saw his own battle scars......his hands were melted so he could not even stretch his hands out all the way from when he had grabbed a still firing machine gun that was spinning into his direction....his best friend had been firing it but he was shot in the head n his finger was still on the trigger....the barrel of a machine gun is red hot after rapid fire but it was either grab the barrel n shove it the other way, or get shot himself.....then another time, he could not get down fast enough and his left side looks like a shark took a huge bite out of him but it was gunfire that shot his side off n then on one of his arms, he'd gotten shot n one of those bullets that explodes after it gets in you didn't explode until AFTER he'd gotten to the states and it 'cause major infection in his arm n the docs thought they might have to amputate, but thankfully they didn't have to tho he was hospitalized for a long time and he sometimes cannot use that arm at all 'cause it gets all stiff n achy........he n i are not together anymore........n even tho he n i dun even talk anymore, that dun mean i have forgotten everything he told me or taught me about where he came from.......my only wish is.......there was something i could do to stop it.....am i wrong?.......i am sure there are far more worse things happening in his country other than just what he told me about......but knowing what i know.......do you need more reason? :confused:

From The Desk of Queen Wyntarra Siddiah:

i am kinda leaning towards voting for this resolution, and here is why....


i once dated a guy from Sudan....he used to tell me some of the most horrific tales of what went on there...STILL goes on there......he told me that since all of the young and middle aged men have left to join the fight against the enemy, they left the old men and the women n children alone, practically defenseless........that the soldiers of the enemy will go into these poor villages and rape the women and young girls and sometimes even the boys and they would make the elderly men watch as it happened n them destroy their eyes or even castrate them or both and that they would rape the new mothers n then cut off her breasts so she could not nurse her screaming baby and tear her up inside with broken glass bottles or even the barrels of their riffles or whatever they could find, n that sometimes they would even smash in the heads of the babies n the toddlers n then as if all that was not enough, they would even steal the boys who were around the ages of 10-13 to make them fight for them n train them to be like them.....n any boys left who were older than 13 were shot n killed on the spot then they would take all the livestock n grains n other foods the village had n leave the survivors to deal the best they could.....whole villages have been wiped out by these kinds of raids.....n i cried so hard when he used to tell me these things n i would have thought him a liar except i saw his own battle scars......his hands were melted so he could not even stretch his hands out all the way from when he had grabbed a still firing machine gun that was spinning into his direction....his best friend had been firing it but he was shot in the head n his finger was still on the trigger....the barrel of a machine gun is red hot after rapid fire but it was either grab the barrel n shove it the other way, or get shot himself.....then another time, he could not get down fast enough and his left side looks like a shark took a huge bite out of him but it was gunfire that shot his side off n then on one of his arms, he'd gotten shot n one of those bullets that explodes after it gets in you didn't explode until AFTER he'd gotten to the states and it 'cause major infection in his arm n the docs thought they might have to amputate, but thankfully they didn't have to tho he was hospitalized for a long time and he sometimes cannot use that arm at all 'cause it gets all stiff n achy........he n i are not together anymore........n even tho he n i dun even talk anymore, that dun mean i have forgotten everything he told me or taught me about where he came from.......my only wish is.......there was something i could do to stop it.....am i wrong?.......i am sure there are far more worse things happening in his country other than just what he told me about......but knowing what i know.......do you need more reason? :confused:

OOC: That is touching, but irrelevant. In the game, things like Darfur and Rwanda never happened, because technically speaking those places do not exist (at least not in the way we think of them). NS is not the same as RL, so any events that happened in RL (like Darfur) didn't happen here and vice versa. Now, I- as others do- RP as having Earth territory (in my Universe, I control Sudan, which I call "Nubia", its ancient name), and in my Universe anyway, Darfur- and Sudan- is a prosperous nation. No genocide occuring there.

Vastiva believes this proposal will pass.

We also believe it gives a legal right to make coalitions of UN members to invade other nations, for any lapdoodle reason people dream up and bribe past the UN staff (seeing as they don't get paid, this should be relatively easy. "Here, two boxes of ramen and a bowl of rice, now sign this".).

A good intent, but not spelled out enough, and about to go into law. Which should be interesting.

As Cabinia points out:

Since the UN has no regulatory power over non-UN states, this resolution cannot be invoked against them. Since no UN nation could possibly commit such atrocities, due to forced compliance to pre-existing resolutions covering this area, this resolution cannot be invoked against them. In essence, there are NO gameplay ramifications to this measure, and your strident objections can be filed under T for "tempest in a teacup."

This files the proposal under "bureaucratic filler". Again, good intent - but what does it really do besides allow us to do what we could already do?

After it is passed, Vastiva can still invade its neighbors. Only now, we will be able to get groups of UN member nations on our side to gang up on another nation - and we'll be able to do so legally.

Curiously interesting. I wonder who we should invade on "human rights violations" first...

Komokom: Since the UN has no regulatory power over non-UN states, this resolution cannot be invoked against them.But since the language does not limit it or at least imply in its content it can only be used within U.N. member states it allows for the interpretation that it may. This is a grave problem.Since no UN nation could possibly commit such atrocities, due to forced compliance to pre-existing resolutions covering this area, this resolution cannot be invoked against them.As I pointed out, it doesn't really say - which - acts are atrocities to any fair degree of definition.In essence, there are NO gameplay ramifications to this measure, and your strident objections can be filed under T for "tempest in a teacup."Incorrect, there are several instances proposed that violate N.S.U.N. rules on formulating committees on forum, not to mention the U.N. being used to target individual nations, which is made worse again by the lack of U.N. / non-U.N. member specification, as well as proposing and demanding Game Mechanics alterations. Its is illegal s it is now for just those last reasons alone. To even approach legality the entire last clause from " CALLS upon " on-wards needs extreme modification as well as the fact one of the initial few seems to directly contradict at least one past U.N. resolution

So I think your assumptions can be filed back under " C (o) " for " Condescending " and overly so.

Curiously interesting. I wonder who we should invade on "human rights violations" first...

*plots*

OOC: That is touching, but irrelevant. In the game, things like Darfur and Rwanda never happened, because technically speaking those places do not exist (at least not in the way we think of them). NS is not the same as RL, so any events that happened in RL (like Darfur) didn't happen here and vice versa. Now, I- as others do- RP as having Earth territory (in my Universe, I control Sudan, which I call "Nubia", its ancient name), and in my Universe anyway, Darfur- and Sudan- is a prosperous nation. No genocide occuring there.

Read through some of the roleplays, and I think you might find out that real life has NOTHING on the way NS has been run.

Vastiva believes this proposal will pass.

We also believe it gives a legal right to make coalitions of UN members to invade other nations, for any lapdoodle reason people dream up and bribe past the UN staff (seeing as they don't get paid, this should be relatively easy. "Here, two boxes of ramen and a bowl of rice, now sign this".).

A good intent, but not spelled out enough, and about to go into law. Which should be interesting.

As Cabinia points out:



This files the proposal under "bureaucratic filler". Again, good intent - but what does it really do besides allow us to do what we could already do?

After it is passed, Vastiva can still invade its neighbors. Only now, we will be able to get groups of UN member nations on our side to gang up on another nation - and we'll be able to do so legally.

Curiously interesting. I wonder who we should invade on "human rights violations" first...
I've been making a list.

As I said earlier in the debate, I fully intend to use this in roleplay.
If we handle it right, we only need 8 nations on an off-site messageboard to give the inquitisions the trappings of legality. Then we can announce a coordinated assault based on the findings, and it will become true! Our victims will become ethnic cleansers and child molesters and whatever else we want to call them.

And we will invade, conquer, and partition even large countries before they even find out something is happening. Once they're partitioned, we can just get the nation deleted and make the whole thing permanent.

This proposal goes directly against the Constitution of our country, and so we vote against, and I see that our regional delegate has done so also. Military sanctions are never good for the people of the country who is invaded. Economic sanctions and diplomacy are more effective in our humble opinion.

I've been making a list.

As I said earlier in the debate, I fully intend to use this in roleplay.
If we handle it right, we only need 8 nations on an off-site messageboard to give the inquitisions the trappings of legality. Then we can announce a coordinated assault based on the findings, and it will become true! Our victims will become ethnic cleansers and child molesters and whatever else we want to call them.

And we will invade, conquer, and partition even large countries before they even find out something is happening. Once they're partitioned, we can just get the nation deleted and make the whole thing permanent.Thank you for perfectly illustrating just another scenario for why this proposal is several flavours of illegal.

Sunimir, a representative of a small region of states, is pleased to see a decent quality debate opening about the resolution at hand. As the native region of Sunimir is populated by both autocratic regimes, as well as higly socially-aware democracies, we are quite aware that this resolution is a concern that should be acknowledged by all nations, not only dictators who wish to find new ways to justify opression.

As for the fate of the resolution... We suggest that it be ruled null and void, as it is illegal and not becomming of the UN and its prime principles. Surely a similar resolution that does not institutionalize UN blessings of military attacks on vague grounds can be drafted, and in that case, we will welcome it with open arms as genocide is indeed a problem humanity must address and attempt to stamp out.

We do trust and have faith in humanity and its ability to resolve humanitarian issues without causing deaths and mayhem. After all, a Humanitarian Intervention promisses many things, but it should not stand for the suffering that is an unavoidable consequence of war.

I just want to say one thing.
Doesn't the real UN have something similar to this? Look at the mess that things like this have caused in the past.
Millitary intervention in counties that are not our own cuases nothing but grief, and don't forget that once you go in, you've got to clean up ALL the mess.
I, Lady Routh vote no to this resolution, and I'm sure that my regional delegate will too.

:headbang: The Confederate Government of Malodious People is against this Amendment. In general, we are against any legislation that allows any type of outside interference of the ruling of our people, even legislation with such a worthy and notable goal. That being said, while we support the ideals of the Resolution, we must respectfully cast our vote against said Resolution.

However, being an upstanding member of the UN, if the Resolution shall pass, the Confederacy of Malodious People shall abide by the terms thereof. :headbang:

This proposal goes directly against the Constitution of our country, and so we vote against, and I see that our regional delegate has done so also. Military sanctions are never good for the people of the country who is invaded. Economic sanctions and diplomacy are more effective in our humble opinion.

And if these people are being slaughtered in their thousands? Women and children being raped and killed in the streets? Young boys being castrated so they will not be a threat in the future? All black people being killed so as to not dilute the racial purity of a nation?

You think sanctions and diplomacy are going to have ANY affect then?

OOC: That is touching, but irrelevant. In the game, things like Darfur and Rwanda never happened, because technically speaking those places do not exist (at least not in the way we think of them). NS is not the same as RL, so any events that happened in RL (like Darfur) didn't happen here and vice versa. Now, I- as others do- RP as having Earth territory (in my Universe, I control Sudan, which I call "Nubia", its ancient name), and in my Universe anyway, Darfur- and Sudan- is a prosperous nation. No genocide occuring there.

Given that no resolution retroactively allows the UN to deal with the past, it matters not if tragic events like Darfur, Rwanda, or even the Holocaust happened, what matters is the statement our governments would like to make on the future.

OOC: I imagine that given there are 124,000+ nations in play that more than one of those nations has a Berlin, more than one of those nations has a Cairo, etc. My point is I don't think the above statement was meant to imply that *your* roleplay includes genocide, but rather to point out the human aspect of something that many Westerners are more isolated from.

And if these people are being slaughtered in their thousands? Women and children being raped and killed in the streets? Young boys being castrated so they will not be a threat in the future? All black people being killed so as to not dilute the racial purity of a nation?

You think sanctions and diplomacy are going to have ANY affect then?

I think it is a poor world community that allows, through the lack of diplomacy and sanctions, such a situation to occur. I seriously doubt that such a thing would happen if we acted *before* the event occurs, rather than after. And how long will this child castrating, woman raping dictator, as you so emotively put it, last with no foreign trade, or contact with the outside world? Regardless, I do not ondone the use of violence as a tool of unity, and as the UN is the best representation of unity that we have, I do not condone it using violence.

I think it is a poor world community that allows, through the lack of diplomacy and sanctions, such a situation to occur. I seriously doubt that such a thing would happen if we acted *before* the event occurs, rather than after. And how long will this child castrating, woman raping dictator, as you so emotively put it, last with no foreign trade, or contact with the outside world? Regardless, I do not ondone the use of violence as a tool of unity, and as the UN is the best representation of unity that we have, I do not condone it using violence.

How long would the sanctions last? Until they stopped the genocide? At which point - when all the blacks are dead, all the women murdered and all the boys unable to father children - there would be no point in continuing it anyway.

The last (and only) genocide to occurr in TilEnca lasted seven years. After the man responsible for it died, the government stopped it and began to try to make slight restitutions in the way they conducted themselves. How would the world community handle that? Would they only impose sanctions for seven years, and then welcome TilEnca back to the folder once the murders stopped? Sounds good doesn't it, except for the twenty five thousand people who died because of it - but they are dead so what does it matter?

And how can you stop something before it starts? Do you know the entire political and social situation of every nation in the UN? Even in your region? Would you be able to spot the signs of an impending genocide and be able to apply enough diplomatic preassure to prevent it? Forgive me if I have my doubts.

Sometimes no-one knows these things are happening until they start, until thousands of thousands of people are dead. At which point diplomacy and sanctions lose all their effectiveness, and the only thing that can be done to save lives is to stop the people who are taking them.

I am voting against the current UN resolution since it states the following:
"THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law"
A person who have broken the law should still be protected by the law. If you catch a burglar breaking into your house, then without a doubt he has broken the law but that doesn't mean you can beat him up or kill him without being arrested for homicide.

I am voting against the current UN resolution since it states the following:
"THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law"
A person who have broken the law should still be protected by the law. If you catch a burglar breaking into your house, then without a doubt he has broken the law but that doesn't mean you can beat him up or kill him without being arrested for homicide.

But by that rule you would not be able touch him. Nor would any police officer who came to arrest him, as touching someone without their consent can be considered assult.

Someone is holding a woman down and raping her. Do you go over and stop him, even though it would be commiting assult to do so?

Further more if someone is always protected by the law, regardless of whether they have broken it or not, shotting someone, even in self-defence - is illegal.

There are different parts to international law. The fact that someone is committing genocide means that they should not be allowed to claim that it is their national right to murder their citizens, and other governments should be permitted to stop them. Once they have been stopped, they will be tried (assuming they were not killed in the fighting) under international law - by which they are still protected.

The point of the resolution is that if a national leader forsakes his right to govern his country if he is murdering people for being red-heads and for no other reason (or he is killing all the blacks, the jews, the whites, the christians etc). Once someone commits a crime, they forfeit their right to be protected under the Rights and Duties regulation. That would be the point of that statement.

I cannot help but feel that your judgement is therefore clouded by the circumstances in your own country which you failed to prevent. Just because these methods were never tried in your country, and thousands died, there is no need to be bitter and say that they will not work for anyone. The sanctions would prhibit outside trade-in such a global economy as we have here, there would be a ceasation in the flow of money into the country, and soon there would be no money to pay the wages of the army, or police, or whatever other orginisation the government is using to perpetrate its crimes. This would lead to a revolt, followed by a quick abdication, probably by force, of the ruling power. REsearch by one of our universities recently showed that many people in a genociding country, who while are not targetted themselves, are too scared to stand up to the authorities, or whose effort are too ineffective. Once the authority has been removed, the genocide will stop.

These measures are would only be effective inside the UN, yes? And therein lies the problem-the vast majority of nations are not in the UN, and these cannot be enforced upon them, whereas a UN wide trade embargo on a country can be enforced. The UN cannot have an international army.

Originally Posted by Gwenstefani
The evidence for grave violations of human rights should be fairly apparent, and while the flag could arguably be raised by any nation, evidence will in fact come from two main sources: either the people of the state themselves, asking for outside help or protection from their own government; or secondly, from independent bodies such as Amnesty International, etc, i.e. international human rights organisations, who should have no vested interests.

As for using humanitarian grounds as a pretext for invading for less honourable reasons, that is why the proposal has stipulated that any action must both be a multilateral, never unilateral, action, and must always be authorised by the UN. Since the UN does not serve the interests of any one state or nation, and works on a system of impartiality, this should reduce the problem of vested interests.

I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask more or for further clarification.

Well doesn't that sound lovely. Let democracy decide the war plans. Unfortunetely ladies and gentlemen, it overlooks one important factor. DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK. It merely results in the tyranny of the majority. The UN does not represent one nations interest, no. But there are 'groups' within the UN, alliances and common interests. The minority groups will always be trampelled on, for the reason that other groups can and will 'gang up' on them.

And who is going to care when your nation ends up on the wrong side of the barrel of the UN? Not the 51% of the UN who haven't heard of you will! We shall see the systematic eradication of first human rights infringers, and then dictatorships and then first-past-the-post electoral systems until we are left with anarchy.

In certain nations, the right to protect the state and the majority of the people comes before human rights. I will fight to preserve that choice.

I cannot help but feel that your judgement is therefore clouded by the circumstances in your own country which you failed to prevent. Just because these methods were never tried in your country, and thousands died, there is no need to be bitter and say that they will not work for anyone. The sanctions would prhibit outside trade-in such a global economy as we have here, there would be a ceasation in the flow of money into the country, and soon there would be no money to pay the wages of the army, or police, or whatever other orginisation the government is using to perpetrate its crimes. This would lead to a revolt, followed by a quick abdication, probably by force, of the ruling power. REsearch by one of our universities recently showed that many people in a genociding country, who while are not targetted themselves, are too scared to stand up to the authorities, or whose effort are too ineffective. Once the authority has been removed, the genocide will stop.


Not to go a touch out of character, but the genocide in rwanda lead to the deaths of 800,000 people in three months. How can you possibly think that anything other than a huge military intervention would have stopped that?

(back in character) And yeah - once the authority has been removed the genocide will stop. But not until after several thousand, if not million, people are dead.

Imagine your nation - your government decides to kill all the left-handed people. They start the massacre, and twenty five thousand are killed in ten days. The international community scolds them, but the government doesn't care. Ten days later another twenty thousand are dead, but now the government is targeting dissenters as well. Dissenters, their familes, their children, their families friends and families parents. Now the international community decides to stop trading with the nation until it stops killing people. So the government thinks "eh - we can wipe out the rest of them in five days, and we can survive that long". Five days later another thirty thousand are dead - bringing the total to fifty five thousand people in twenty five days. And then the government stops the massacre because - finally - it is feeling the pinch of the sanctions. Less than one month, and the government is now getting to trade again. And even if it doesn, even if it gets overthrown, fifty five thousand people are still dead in your nation.

So forgive me if I think that maybe talking and sanctions are not the best way to prevent a full third of a population being murdered.

Far be it from me to suggest that most nations don't want to get involved unless there is something for them to gain from it. That although most nations will give lip service to human rights, actually doing something about it is beyond what they are willing to risk. That would just be insulting of me, and not worthy of raising in such a forum as this.

[QUOTE=Drakendrake] Yes, people are coming in as humanitarians, but bring weapons with they? What kind of message is this resolution trying to give? [QUOTE]

The message would be that genocide is intolerable, and that the UN will not stand for it. And you're not just going to get a telling off for it anymore. Something is actually going to be done about it.

And the message to the people themselves is even more important. The victims of genocide, I'm sure, will be greatly comforted to know that the international community disapproves of the atrocities occurring within their country. I think, however, they might be more appreciative of something being done to actually help them. Especially since this proposal requires that the citizens of the state ACTUALLY WANT TO BE HELPED.

OOC: I agree with you on RWanada, and I am disgusted by the lack of effort from the itnernational community on it. I still do not support military action there either though.

IC:I agree with you that a truly fanatical government could just go ahead, regardless, killing thousands, and doing so before the international community can act. This is, of course, truly awful, and must be stopped. But by military intervention?

Unless my country's intelligence reports are incredibly out of date, there are very few weapons that can destroy only vital military points and units without harming civilians. I have no wish to see even more die from our actions, 'saving' them. There will always be civillian casualties, and more die as a result of military action than otherwise.

Although you would not suggest it, some nations could be said to have less than moral motives in theier actions. These nations, whoever they are, would fabricate evidence against a country, invade, looting on the sly, and install a puppet government under their control. The proposal makes no mention of what will happoen after the mi,itary has been deployed, destroying lives, homes and the infrastructure of the country. I can see now that even if a country is taking part in a war that maybe considered 'just' by the wider community, they could still profit immensely from the war. So perhaps they should not be handed this legislation on a platter, giving them a carte blanc to invade any country they want with a little help from an ally.

[SIZE=1]
The N.S.U.N. may not target individual states in its legislation or actions. Whether they are members or not. In fact, this legislation implies it can " strike at " non-members which it bloody well may not, might I add.

It doesn't target any individual states. It is a blanket rule for *any* nation that commits genocide. It is the same as any other proposal in that sense.


[/b]While your at it, maybe you should define human rights violations first. Else you, and of course, we will face the : " OH GOD GOOD, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BY OR SELL OR CONSUME RANDOM SODA PRODUCT " A " IN THIS COUNTRY ! This is an out-rage ! I'm calling the U.N. ! " style of arguments to cause Havok willy nilly.

And how does soda violate one's human rights? Really, the emphasis of the proposal lies on the major violations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. On hindsight the addition of "and other major human rights violations" or whatever i wrote, has caused more trouble than it;s worth, but in legalese it is meaningless- it just means that the proposal is open to being amended by new proposals in the future. Only explicity listed "crimes" actually count in legal UN proposals. (OOC- certainly in the real UN)


Cannot form nor mandate formation of such a panel which would need to utilise this forum to communicate on. May mandate NPC panels and commities only under current rules.Covered this, can't be done, moving on.No, no and no.
it breaks most of the rules to do it.

Of course it is not illegal or against rules. These panels ALREADY EXIST for the Eon COnvention on Genocide (UN proposal #83). How can they be legal for that resolution and not for this one??

OOC: I agree with you on RWanada, and I am disgusted by the lack of effort from the itnernational community on it. I still do not support military action there either though.

IC:I agree with you that a truly fanatical government could just go ahead, regardless, killing thousands, and doing so before the international community can act. This is, of course, truly awful, and must be stopped. But by military intervention?

Unless my country's intelligence reports are incredibly out of date, there are very few weapons that can destroy only vital military points and units without harming civilians. I have no wish to see even more die from our actions, 'saving' them. There will always be civillian casualties, and more die as a result of military action than otherwise.

Although you would not suggest it, some nations could be said to have less than moral motives in theier actions. These nations, whoever they are, would fabricate evidence against a country, invade, looting on the sly, and install a puppet government under their control. The proposal makes no mention of what will happoen after the mi,itary has been deployed, destroying lives, homes and the infrastructure of the country. I can see now that even if a country is taking part in a war that maybe considered 'just' by the wider community, they could still profit immensely from the war. So perhaps they should not be handed this legislation on a platter, giving them a carte blanc to invade any country they want with a little help from an ally.

I admit it's a risk, that invading could kill some civilians, but if you invade on day two and kill say fifty in the invasion, rather than not invading and watching thousands die, I think it is a risk worth taking.

And the "little help from an ally" would be "lots of help from fifteen independent nations" - not as easy to arrange :}

But since the language does not limit it or at least imply in its content it can only be used within U.N. member states it allows for the interpretation that it may. This is a grave problem.

It is not necessary to specify the limit, because that limit is contained in the UN charter. From the game FAQ: "As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions."

As I pointed out, it doesn't really say - which - acts are atrocities to any fair degree of definition.

It does provide for UN review to determine whether the act is an atrocity or not. This allows for flexibility in judgement that is necessary, because every case will be unique and must be judged on its own merits. What would you propose as an alternative? A numerical limit? Evil dictators would be free to kill 19,999 people, but the next one would cost them?

Incorrect, there are several instances proposed that violate N.S.U.N. rules on formulating committees on forum, not to mention the U.N. being used to target individual nations, which is made worse again by the lack of U.N. / non-U.N. member specification, as well as proposing and demanding Game Mechanics alterations. Its is illegal s it is now for just those last reasons alone. To even approach legality the entire last clause from " CALLS upon " on-wards needs extreme modification as well as the fact one of the initial few seems to directly contradict at least one past U.N. resolution

I repeat: there are no gameplay ramifications. There are no opportunities to invoke this committee, so there is no change to game mechanics.

So I think your assumptions can be filed back under " C (o) " for " Condescending " and overly so.

Does this also make you "despair for humanity"? "For the love of god, does some one[sic] see my point?"

You're free to set the tone of your arguments however you like. But don't act surprised when it comes back to you.

These measures are would only be effective inside the UN, yes? And therein lies the problem-the vast majority of nations are not in the UN, and these cannot be enforced upon them, whereas a UN wide trade embargo on a country can be enforced. The UN cannot have an international army.

No. It would affect non-UN members also, but indirectly, and not in breach of game rules. While non-UN members can commit genocide and not be brought to justice under the Eon Convention, this proposal would allow UN members to intervene and stop the genocide. They could do this anyway. UN nations are allowed to go to war with non-UN members. But what this resolution does is regulate how the UN members (and ONLY the UN members) go about this intervention.

As it stands now, I could see a country commiting genocide (or not) and attack it, doing as much damage as possible, then leaving without help cleaning up. Now though, under this proposal, I would only be allowed to do it legally if I had just cause (genocide). I would be required to do minimal damage, and comply to a set of guidelines covering acceptable targets to mission goals. I would then have to help rebuild the country.

Surely that's better?

Please point out to me in the NS rules that provide for war?

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi


In fact the rules state that there is no optin for war, and that is limited to Roleplaying on these boards. I would argue that this resolution attempts to regulate actions beyond the scope of the rules of the game. Therefore it should be sumarily struck down.

As it stands now, I could see a country commiting genocide (or not) and attack it, doing as much damage as possible, then leaving without help cleaning up. Now though, under this proposal, I would only be allowed to do it legally if I had just cause (genocide). I would be required to do minimal damage, and comply to a set of guidelines covering acceptable targets to mission goals. I would then have to help rebuild the country.

Surely that's better?

Yes, it is infinitely better, in my opinion. But it would be better still not to go to war at all.

Face it, if we have a reolution encouraging nations to go to war, as this one does, albeit for moral reasons, then won't that make the UN another elitist club? I know in an ideal world every nation would be UN members*, but it's not going to happen.

I admit I had overlooked getting fifteen nations to decide whether it is genocide, I only noticed the two needed to bring it to the panel at first. But let's go back to your example then. By the time the panel has been called, evidence gathered and submitted, the Genocider will already have completed their foul work, and the subsequent invasion, if the commitee finds grounds for it, will only kill more people. Far be it for me to suggest that we ignore genocide, but I would appreaciate other solutions than application of brute force.

A suggestion that ran through my mind breifly was assassination, but I dismissed this. It would only work in a Dictatorship, and even then imperfectly, and it would violate the reputation of the UN utterly. But even so, one life compared to thousands? Exita acta probata.

*OOC: Because of the game rules, this can never happen.

This UN resolution sounds like a George Bush pre-emotive war type resolution. Who wants that other than the fascists?

I wrote the proposal, and am going to explain a little about my rationale behind it, and clear up a few misconceptions. But if you have any questions or issues that I don't cover, please don't hesitate to get in contact with me- send me a telegram.

The main goal of the proposal is basically to put a stop to genocide and ethnic cleansing if and when it occurs. While UN members can be brough to justice by the Eon Convention, this only happens AFTER the genocide has been committed. This new proposal allows us to put a stop to the atrocities while they are happening, hopefully saving thousands/millions of lives.

The most common argument against it is concerned with the issue of national sovereignty. However, sovereignty is not really in peril UNLESS you commit genocide. This proposal doesn't allow nations to invade anyone they want on any pretext. There has to be an exceptionally strong case for doing so, i.e. genocide. And genocide shouldn't be considered an internal issue. Especially not when the people themselves are asking for protection from their own government. The proposal does stipulate that the people must be in favour of an intervetion, even if the government is not. And that is consent.

[OC]would argue against the comment comparing it to the Iraq fiasco. And compare it more to Kosovo for example, where intervention helped. Or Rwanda, where no intervention occurred. [/OOC]

At the moment, when genocide occurs, all the international community does is express its disapproval, which is of little comfort to those being slaughtered. They are asking for help, not sympathy. And this proposal does just that.

The second main issue is that of non-UN members. Does this resolution illegally affect them?

The answer is NO. It does affect them, but only indirectly in that it affects how member states deal with them, and therefore not in contradiction of the game rules. At the moment, a UN member can invade a non-UN member for whatever reason it likes. It can do as much damage as it wants, and leave without cleaning up. This proposal regulates how UN members (and only UN members) behave in such circumstances. They must have exceptionally good reasons for doing so, they must then do minimal damage, and acting in accordance to strict guidelines on for example what constitutes valid targets, mission goals, etc. And then, they must help with the rebuilding of the state. Surely such helpful regulation of the situation is better than no rules whatsoever?

As I say, any other questions, please get in touch. Thankyou, and I hope you will consider voting for the proposal.

Please point out to me in the NS rules that provide for war?

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi


In fact the rules state that there is no optin for war, and that is limited to Roleplaying on these boards. I would argue that this resolution attempts to regulate actions beyond the scope of the rules of the game. Therefore it should be sumarily struck down.

Obviously it is a role play element, as are many of the other proposals. For example, the Eon Convention's means for punishing those who commit genocide.

I will continue to argue against the resolution as it's currently written for several reasons:

First, as many have already said, it allows fifteen nations to determine the fate of any UN member. Resolutions that include vague phrases that allow military action don't tend to sit well with me.

Second, if a UN nation were to commit genocide, how long would it take such a panel to deliberate before intervention is authorized? Would another UN member have this rule invoked against them for pre-emptive intervention?

Finally, what prevents a UN member from leaving the organization, committing genocide, and then re-entering the UN, claiming to have a different government? I can see legitimate cases of this occurring, but I can also see how it can be abused.

The unfortunate thing is that, as a Regional Delegate in a democratic region, I'll likely be compelled to vote in favor of this, as written. Sadly, "tyranny of the masses" is becoming a fairly large concern already for me.

Some points why this whole intervention thing is wrong:

One:

There is no backup! How do you know for sure after the UN intervention the country will be rebuilt?
Which punishment will be undertaken against those who come, destroy and leave? It remains unsaid.
Yes, they are "obliged". Some countries have somewhat unique ideas of obligation.

Second:

Two nations can ally and destroy an other nation. Or in a better case, turn it into a puppet of theirs. Or in the best case, just blacken their name. And what will become of the UN? Soon we will be a bunch of schoolkids, rolling over the ground fighting. This resolution is a serious danger for the UN itself. The UN might stand up against itself, and eventually be destroyed.

And is that what you want? Is it?

Three:

What do you consider extreme human rights abusion?
Avoid resolutions that are vague, that can be explained double, or that are relative. They cause confusion and trouble.

Four:

By the time the procedure has been done, the genocide will already be lying far back in history.


The basic idea isn't bad, but it isn't properly worked out, and therefor shouldn't be voted for.

EDIT: It seems that whilst I was typing this, someone was thinking in the same direction. Very good.

Yes, it is infinitely better, in my opinion. But it would be better still not to go to war at all.


Of course peace is always better than war. But genocide is not a state of peace. It is effectively civil war, but a war in which one side is defenseless, unarmed, etc.

And sometimes action is needed. What is worse? Intervening to help save the lvies of thousands, even millions using military force against the perpetrators of a barbaric and horrific crime? Or standing by doing nothing while thousands of people are being slaughtered, all the time asking for our help and all we can give them is our sympathy?

Finally, what prevents a UN member from leaving the organization, committing genocide, and then re-entering the UN, claiming to have a different government? I can see legitimate cases of this occurring, but I can also see how it can be abused.
.

The fact that, indirectly, UN non-members are not exempt from the effects of this resolution.

Does this resolution illegally affect them?

The answer is NO. It does affect them, but only indirectly in that it affects how member states deal with them, and therefore not in contradiction of the game rules. At the moment, a UN member can invade a non-UN member for whatever reason it likes. It can do as much damage as it wants, and leave without cleaning up. This proposal regulates how UN members (and only UN members) behave in such circumstances. They must have exceptionally good reasons for doing so, they must then do minimal damage, and acting in accordance to strict guidelines on for example what constitutes valid targets, mission goals, etc. And then, they must help with the rebuilding of the state. Surely such helpful regulation of the situation is better than no rules whatsoever?

And sometimes action is needed. What is worse? Intervening to help save the lvies of thousands, even millions using military force against the perpetrators of a barbaric and horrific crime? Or standing by doing nothing while thousands of people are being slaughtered, all the time asking for our help and all we can give them is our sympathy?

Could we use rational reasoning rather than emotional?

Wouldn't international watchers be better? This is a severe warning for a country.
Besides, should it be needed, then I think it better to feed a revolution in that country than to have an international intervention.

Of course peace is always better than war. But genocide is not a state of peace. It is effectively civil war, but a war in which one side is defenseless, unarmed, etc.

And sometimes action is needed. What is worse? Intervening to help save the lvies of thousands, even millions using military force against the perpetrators of a barbaric and horrific crime? Or standing by doing nothing while thousands of people are being slaughtered, all the time asking for our help and all we can give them is our sympathy?

I don't know if you've read some of my previous points, and I don't blame you if you haven't trawled all the way through this thread, so maybe you missed them.

I basically pointed out that intervention by the military will always cause the death of civilians-there just is no other way to do it. I put forwards the idea that more people would be killed by the intervention than by leaving the country alone. In a purely mathematical, statistical sense, it might be better to leave the country alone.

Okay, new plan. ;) We foster rebellion inside the country. Or we forcibly remove the ethnic minority from the country, using quick extraction units to remove them from harm. While the dictator *may* start a war, they *may* also leave the UN alone, knowing what will happen otherwise (EG, War, though it pains me to say it) If said dictator has no minority to kill, then half of said dictator's power is gone, as said dictator has no one to blame for everything. Am I making any sense?

Could we use rational reasoning rather than emotional?

Wouldn't international watchers be better? This is a severe warning for a country.
Besides, should it be needed, then I think it better to feed a revolution in that country than to have an international intervention.

Many of the arguments like yours a re all theoretical, ie we should let the people stop it themselves, feed a revolution, use diplomacy, etc...

But practically, when this happens, the people are often powerless to stop it. Rebel leaders are among the first to be executed. Unarmed men, women, children and the elderly have little to defend themselves with against an army with guns. And all the while that the diplomacy or "feeding a revolution" is occurring, thousands are being slaughtered by the day. This is not an emotional argument. Its a numbers game. Action is needed, and the sooner the better in the case of genocide.

Feeding a revolution: to provide the weapons, food and other required materials a revolution would need. Even provide men if it be needed. But it is easier for a new government to rise from a revolution than from an international intervention. It would have to be very strictly regulated, and have severe punishments when abused.
Of course this is only possible if a majority is being genocided. But the numbers you used sounded like majorities.

When minorities are being genocided it's a different case. Then an intelligence propaganda action in that country might be smarter. With the same remark as the revolution of course.

I'm just going to make the few points that came to mind as I read it.

Firstly, it basically says that any nation who performs these acts are no longer subject to international protection, which means that nobody can legally stop anyone from invading. However, this is then later contradicted by saying that how they can be attacked is subject to UN decree. (so it's a self-conflicting, but technically non-limiting document)

Secondly, in removing international protection, you also remove any chance of helping the victims, which should always be a high priority in international law.

Thirdly, by ostracising a nation in this way, you encourage them to perform more acts (and it's ambiguous as to how much international law still applies to them, given the phrase "should therefore not be protected by international law" - who exactly isn't being protected? You have to remember the victims are part of the nation as well)

Fourthly, you have to realise that not every UN-member nation is democratic, and this plainly anti-autocratic legislation. Likewise, it's quite possible that this document could be invoked in the case of one nation who has a vendetta against another, if that other has rebel factions in their nation which they have to put down.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps the intended result would be better served, if a document ruling that no government can force anyone, who has been mistreated under the Universal Bill of Rights, to stay within their borders, and that this open-border policy can be enforced by the international community.

Secondly, in removing international protection, you also remove any chance of helping the victims, which should always be a high priority in international law.


By this I meant the government of the state would lose its right to national sovereignty- the rights of the people would still be protected, in fact, that is what the whole intervention is based upon- the protection of the people.


Fourthly, you have to realise that not every UN-member nation is democratic, and this plainly anti-autocratic legislation. Likewise, it's quite possible that this document could be invoked in the case of one nation who has a vendetta against another, if that other has rebel factions in their nation which they have to put down.


Not really, in that if the people are happy with how there country is being run, regardless of government type, then there is no basis for intervention. Recall that intervention can only occur with the consent of the people. If however, they are being oppressed and denied their basic human rights across the board to the point of being killed by their own government, and are consequently asking for outside help, well, then we can intervene on their behalf.

No, because they still have to go the UN panel and have their grounds, aims and means tested and approved before any "blessing" is given.

And (of course) all of the members of the UN panel are angels incarnate, who are not subject to political pressure, bribes, or overt intimidation.

No, not on any whim. AGAIN, only if *shouts* GENOCIDE IS OCCURRING!!!!

According to whom? Who will investigate the allegations? Who has the burden of proof? What if the accused nation refuses to talk to the investigators for their own reasons? Who decides if it really is genocide or "other massive abuses of human rights"?

Good intentions do not necessarily make good law.

Could we use rational reasoning rather than emotional?

Wouldn't international watchers be better? This is a severe warning for a country.
Besides, should it be needed, then I think it better to feed a revolution in that country than to have an international intervention.

So you have no problem watching thousands of people dying, but you don't want to interfere to stop it?

And while overthrowing a government is wrong, inciting a revolution is an acceptable way to overthrow a government? Just so long as your hands are clean of blood, it doesn't matter what the end result is?

How are you going to determine whether a people consent to intervention? A crack squad of commando opinion pollsters perhaps?

Obviously it is a role play element, as are many of the other proposals. For example, the Eon Convention's means for punishing those who commit genocide.OOC: That's fair enough. Can I just check (not just with you, this is a general point) that the proponents of this motion will be willing to RP any negative effects people want to play out if this motion passes.

This is not a country club or a boyscout gather. It is the UN, and I am apalled to see the points reasoned by some, such as the following:

By Gwenstefani
I wrote the proposal, and am going to explain a little about my rationale behind it, and clear up a few misconceptions.

I'm afraid that will not do. The reasoning of the delegate that submitted the resolution means NOTHING in this case. A UN resolution is not a piece of friendly advice, it is a LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT that affects (in this case) thousands of nations, and the better part of the industrialized world.

Hence, any reasoning by whoever submitted it is irrelevant and the mere suggestion that it makes a difference sounds as a bad joke. A UN resolution is a legal document, and if it is applied in fraudulently abusive and violent measures, the reasoning of the days when the poorly worded document was drafted means, and exuse my French, diddly squat.

I'm afraid that will not do. The reasoning of the delegate that submitted the resolution means NOTHING in this case. A UN resolution is not a piece of friendly advice, it is a LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT that affects (in this case) thousands of nations, and the better part of the industrialized world.

Hence, any reasoning by whoever submitted it is irrelevant and the mere suggestion that it makes a difference sounds as a bad joke. A UN resolution is a legal document, and if it is applied in fraudulently abusive and violent measures, the reasoning of the days when the poorly worded document was drafted means, and exuse my French, diddly squat.

Is a UN resolution a legaly binding document?

You are aware that nations are free to come and go from the UN as they please, and while some treaties and conventions have terms under which notice must be formally filed in order for the document to no longer apply, there is no such mechanism in the NationStates UN.

My government has always held the opinion (and that is all either of us will be able to present on this issue) that UN resolutions are strong statements of international will. If my government wanted a legally binding document, we'd incorporate the spirit of the UN recommendation into our domestic laws.

Until the Council of Mayors sees other rulers from other nations choosing who we pick our "daily" domestic issues, we will point out that we are free to follow domestic recommendations that do in fact counter existing UN resolutions. However, out of respect to this body our domestic laws attempt to stay consistent with both this body and its profound impact on domestic popular opinion.

Amazingly when the UN moves in the direction of say increased Civil Freedoms, the people of the Confederated City States seem to want to move that way as well, and the Council of Mayors makes this happen.

This is not a country club or a boyscout gather. It is the UN, and I am apalled to see the points reasoned by some, such as the following:

By Gwenstefani
I wrote the proposal, and am going to explain a little about my rationale behind it, and clear up a few misconceptions.

I'm afraid that will not do. The reasoning of the delegate that submitted the resolution means NOTHING in this case. A UN resolution is not a piece of friendly advice, it is a LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT that affects (in this case) thousands of nations, and the better part of the industrialized world.

Hence, any reasoning by whoever submitted it is irrelevant and the mere suggestion that it makes a difference sounds as a bad joke. A UN resolution is a legal document, and if it is applied in fraudulently abusive and violent measures, the reasoning of the days when the poorly worded document was drafted means, and exuse my French, diddly squat.

OOC: Most of that post was a copy & paste job from a regional messageboard (offsite) in which I had to explain who I was and what i was doing. I figured some of it would be worthwhile repeating here. Don't read so much into insignificant sentences that are not even part of the proposal.

I understand you getting wound up about the issue, but nitpicking over little completely insignificant things such as that is just petty.

IC: Often the spirit of a legal document IS taken into account. As is the context out of which it arose. These help us understand the motives behind the resolution, what it is trying to do. And this in turn helps us to interpret various elements of the text to come to an accurate understanding of what it entails. Legal documents are not a science, and they can be reinterpreted many ways, despite one's best efforts. But it is the spirit of the times and the nations interpreting it that brings the final conclusion (for a while). So my intentions in this case are not completley irrelevant.

OOC:
hehe I'm not aggravated or anything. Discussing a UN resolution IC though... is politics. And politics... is often knitpicking and wordplay. Not to mention legalesse. Ask anyone who got out of jail on the base of Miranda rights, he'll agree with it happily. :D

Given that no resolution retroactively allows the UN to deal with the past, it matters not if tragic events like Darfur, Rwanda, or even the Holocaust happened, what matters is the statement our governments would like to make on the future.

OOC: I imagine that given there are 124,000+ nations in play that more than one of those nations has a Berlin, more than one of those nations has a Cairo, etc. My point is I don't think the above statement was meant to imply that *your* roleplay includes genocide, but rather to point out the human aspect of something that many Westerners are more isolated from.
I was merely saying that I don't count her argument as valid since for the purposes of the NSUN it never happened. However, I do realize that RL arguments have been used on the forums, so I can just let it slide.

For those of you arguing about freedom to have any type of government by the way, check out UN Resolution #8, Citizen Rule Required:

"Description: This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed.

These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations."

And how does soda violate one's human rights? Really, the emphasis of the proposal lies on the major violations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. On hindsight the addition of "and other major human rights violations" or whatever i wrote, has caused more trouble than it;s worth, but in legalese it is meaningless- it just means that the proposal is open to being amended by new proposals in the future. Only explicity listed "crimes" actually count in legal UN proposals. (OOC- certainly in the real UN)

There is no such thing as "meaningless legalese". Everything is important in a legal document. You shouldn't have wrote "other human rights violations", you shouldn't have wrote "end tryanny", and when this is passed it will be used as an excuse for imperialism. Next time, write what you mean and mean what you write.

There is no such thing as "meaningless legalese". Everything is important in a legal document. You shouldn't have wrote "other human rights violations", you shouldn't have wrote "end tryanny", and when this is passed it will be used as an excuse for imperialism. Next time, write what you mean and mean what you write.

I think there is meaningless legalese. For example in the following phrase "the party of the first part is party to the party of the second part with the first party being the party of the third party"

Seriously - what is that supposed to mean?

I think there is meaningless legalese. For example in the following phrase "the party of the first part is party to the party of the second part with the first party being the party of the third party"

Seriously - what is that supposed to mean?

Ummm...that even lawyers can suffer from verbal diarrhea?

I can see several workarounds of Resolution Number Eight, which is why I don't get tremendously worked up about it. For example, a nation could allow city/town councils to be democratically elected, but an appointed governor could have final power to approve or veto the decisions of said council. Technically, the people have their voice, but it's really the central authority or authorities who have control.

In Krioval, for example, the Commander is appointed by the Parliament for life. Parliament is elected by the people for four year terms, either when the previous term expires or when the Senators decide to hold new elections. It takes two-thirds of Parliament and a majority of the population to recall a Commander, and I'm sure there are ways to prevent that from ever seeing the light of day. So democratic, despotic, and "mixed" governments can exist under Resolution Eight.

I think we are possibly getting off the topic - this proposal doesn't deal with Resolution 8 at all, and as far as I can tell doesn't violate it :}

OOC: That's fair enough. Can I just check (not just with you, this is a general point) that the proponents of this motion will be willing to RP any negative effects people want to play out if this motion passes.
I actually think it could be quite interesting. Count me in.

By the way, Gwenstefani, I'm not entirely sure why you have the inoperative clause saying that National Sovereignty is controlled by the will of the UN (or something like that). As far as I see, this resolution only infringes on national sovereignty when cases of extreme human rights violations are in occurrence, and I know of no national sovereignty proponents that would go so far to cry sovereignty in cases such as genocide.

I actually think it could be quite interesting. Count me in.

By the way, Gwenstefani, I'm not entirely sure why you have the inoperative clause saying that National Sovereignty is controlled by the will of the UN (or something like that). As far as I see, this resolution only infringes on national sovereignty when cases of extreme human rights violations are in occurrence, and I know of no national sovereignty proponents that would go so far to cry sovereignty in cases such as genocide.

Re-read this thread. I have found two or three of them already.

I actually think it could be quite interesting. Count me in.

By the way, Gwenstefani, I'm not entirely sure why you have the inoperative clause saying that National Sovereignty is controlled by the will of the UN (or something like that). As far as I see, this resolution only infringes on national sovereignty when cases of extreme human rights violations are in occurrence, and I know of no national sovereignty proponents that would go so far to cry sovereignty in cases such as genocide.

Lol, that's what I've been trying to say- that soveriegnty is only infringed upon under extreme circumstances. But most people seem to miss that. Congratulations on being maybe the second person to pick up on that.

Would anyone be interested in joining a campaign against this resolution?

Would anyone be interested in joining a campaign against this resolution?

The Holy Empire of The Religious People as well as the region of WhatifContinent gladly will join your campaign.

Let's be serious about it then and draw up a telegram we can send to the delegates who've voted in favor.

TG me to discuss tactics and wording.

My proposed telegram for the opposition campaign.


I don't want to be an annoyance, but...

I noticed that you voted in favor of the Humanitarian Intervention resolution now being considered.

I have followed the arguments about this resolution closely in the UN forum http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388613&page=1&pp=15 and I am greatly concerned about potential abuse of process in this resolution.

It allows for secret tribunals outside the UN forum to make a finding that genocide has occurred in a country, it provides the accused nationstate no opportunity to defend itself before the tribunal. It provides the accused nationstate no warning, even, of the impending invasion.

I think we all agree this is a wonderful idea, but I ask you to reconsider whether this incarnation of the resolution deserves your support.

Thank you again for your time.

This breaks sovereignty just as much as any other proposal within the jurisdiction of the UN.
I vote for this proposal, as it protects the rights of people, and only hurts dictators, whom dont care about our rights of choice. (referring to the legalizing prositutism passed recently)
Anyone in their right mind is going to vote for this resolution. Any dictators(usually not in their right mind)will vote for. Obviously the Resolution will pass. Arguements are virtually useless for the opposing side, since this resolution is for the good of the region as a whole(Excluding fascists of course, but they dont count since they steal our rights just as we are to them now as i said before)

-Dek

This breaks sovereignty just as much as any other proposal within the jurisdiction of the UN.
I vote for this proposal, as it protects the rights of people, and only hurts dictators, whom dont care about our rights of choice. (referring to the legalizing prositutism passed recently)
Anyone in their right mind is going to vote for this resolution. Any dictators(usually not in their right mind)will vote for. Obviously the Resolution will pass. Arguements are virtually useless for the opposing side, since this resolution is for the good of the region as a whole(Excluding fascists of course, but they dont count since they steal our rights just as we are to them now as i said before)

-Dek
Hang on. Are you accusing anyone opposed to this as being fascists? What about all those other types of dictatorship? Autocrats, Dictatorial Socialists, Tyranny by Majority-ists, Theocrats, Hierocrats, Stratiocrats, Imperialists or Absolute Monarchists?

A blanket, pigeon-holing accusation will never go down well. Just a point to keep in mind for the future.

And I'm really not sure where that reference to prostiution came from.

I'm a democrat and I'm not all that comfortable supporting it (which is why I'm listed as "undecided"). I determined to let my region have a say in the way I vote, since I'm their delegate, but I'm seriously considering voting "no".

Hang on. Are you accusing anyone opposed to this as being fascists? What about all those other types of dictatorship? Autocrats, Dictatorial Socialists, Tyranny by Majority-ists, Theocrats, Hierocrats, Stratiocrats, Imperialists or Absolute Monarchists?

A blanket, pigeon-holing accusation will never go down well. Just a point to keep in mind for the future.

And I'm really not sure where that reference to prostiution came from.

Fascist was simply a stereotype because its been them trying to control the UN recently i believe.
Prositutism came from the recent Sex Free Trade act.
The accusation is simply a stereotype and exageration as well, but an accurate one, seeing as how this is FOR civil rights, and that anyone anti civil rights is usually a dictatorship(Especially fascists as i recall)who would vote against this.

Hang on. Are you accusing anyone opposed to this as being fascists? What about all those other types of dictatorship? Autocrats, Dictatorial Socialists, Tyranny by Majority-ists, Theocrats, Hierocrats, Stratiocrats, Imperialists or Absolute Monarchists?

A blanket, pigeon-holing accusation will never go down well. Just a point to keep in mind for the future.

And I'm really not sure where that reference to prostiution came from.
I do believe he's stalking me.

Heh.

I'm not sure how he settled on me as the face of evile incarnate and the driving force behind legal prostitution in the NSUN, but I'm honored. I... I feel so unworthy! I didn't even prepare a speech.

This poroposal is nuts.
shoot it down. :sniper:

The message would be that genocide is intolerable, and that the UN will not stand for it. And you're not just going to get a telling off for it anymore. Something is actually going to be done about it.

Eon Convention on Genocide does that. If that is the entire purpose of this, this is a waste of the UN's time.

And the message to the people themselves is even more important. The victims of genocide, I'm sure, will be greatly comforted to know that the international community disapproves of the atrocities occurring within their country. I think, however, they might be more appreciative of something being done to actually help them. Especially since this proposal requires that the citizens of the state ACTUALLY WANT TO BE HELPED.

See above.

It doesn't target any individual states. It is a blanket rule for *any* nation that commits genocide. It is the same as any other proposal in that sense.

That makes the resolution illegal by UN rules, which means it should be deleted and you either warned or ejected for breaking game rules.

No. It would affect non-UN members also, but indirectly, and not in breach of game rules. While non-UN members can commit genocide and not be brought to justice under the Eon Convention, this proposal would allow UN members to intervene and stop the genocide. They could do this anyway. UN nations are allowed to go to war with non-UN members. But what this resolution does is regulate how the UN members (and ONLY the UN members) go about this intervention.

This resolution doesn't actually regulate it, just place possible regulations on it. The nations can do it anyway, without UN support.

Oh, that only brings it from blatantly illegal to a sly way of going around game rules. Not illegal as a tactic, but also not honorable.

As it stands now, I could see a country commiting genocide (or not) and attack it, doing as much damage as possible, then leaving without help cleaning up. Now though, under this proposal, I would only be allowed to do it legally if I had just cause (genocide). I would be required to do minimal damage, and comply to a set of guidelines covering acceptable targets to mission goals. I would then have to help rebuild the country.

I see nothing that prevents you from attacking and leaving them in ruins anyway. It is not supported by anything I have read in the resolution or previous resolutions. Provide evidence for this.

The answer is NO. It does affect them, but only indirectly in that it affects how member states deal with them, and therefore not in contradiction of the game rules. At the moment, a UN member can invade a non-UN member for whatever reason it likes. It can do as much damage as it wants, and leave without cleaning up. This proposal regulates how UN members (and only UN members) behave in such circumstances. They must have exceptionally good reasons for doing so, they must then do minimal damage, and acting in accordance to strict guidelines on for example what constitutes valid targets, mission goals, etc. And then, they must help with the rebuilding of the state. Surely such helpful regulation of the situation is better than no rules whatsoever?

See above.

Lol, that's what I've been trying to say- that soveriegnty is only infringed upon under extreme circumstances. But most people seem to miss that. Congratulations on being maybe the second person to pick up on that.

Logical fallacy, already dealt with by previous posts you are conveniently ignoring. Deal with the challenges and methods of abusing this that have been brought up, which were brought up pages ago.

As it stands, the case for this resolution is resting on weak ground that requires ignoring pages of arguements against it to even be worthy of consideration.

By this I meant the government of the state would lose its right to national sovereignty- the rights of the people would still be protected, in fact, that is what the whole intervention is based upon- the protection of the people.
Perhaps you might want to make that just a smidge more specific then. ;) Maybe something like "THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not have their sovereignty protected by international law."

Not really, in that if the people are happy with how there country is being run, regardless of government type, then there is no basis for intervention. Recall that intervention can only occur with the consent of the people. If however, they are being oppressed and denied their basic human rights across the board to the point of being killed by their own government, and are consequently asking for outside help, well, then we can intervene on their behalf.
Ahhh - it does say "welcomed by the victims" - good good.
It's just that you alluded to the 'removal of tyranny'. Check the first definition of tyranny on dictionary.com - it's just another word for autocracy (in fact, the word stems from the Ancient Greek "Tyrants" which is just another word for their type of king, and not their rulling-style at all).

It's just that you alluded to the 'removal of tyranny'. Check the first definition of tyranny on dictionary.com - it's just another word for autocracy (in fact, the word stems from the Ancient Greek "Tyrants" which is just another word for their type of king, and not their rulling-style at all).
Just a clarification, more than anything else - a Tyrant in Ancient Greece was anyone who ruled over a land, but not through heredity. The Greeks had Kings as well, but the two were different concepts.

I just found a gem:


Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

We now have a proposal that DIRECTLY violates Resolution #83.

Sunimir will gladly support any effort on stopping this resolution to be passed. After a lengthy reconsideration, Sunimir notes that leaving the UN on account of tis resolution is not an acceptable option, but will rather fight the militaristic aura of it by diplomatic means.

For all intended purposes, this can indeed be viewed as a statement of intent, where an argumented repeal of this resolution will be proposed immediately, should the resolution be passed, for watever reason.

All interested nations are invited to join in the drafting of the repeal proposal, so that it will be as effective as possible.

I just found a gem:



We now have a proposal that DIRECTLY violates Resolution #83.

Wrong. This proposal is giving grounds to invade another nation. It does not say "under The Eon Convention you can now invade". It says that nations are permitted to invade other nations under this proposal.

Originally Posted by me
I don't want to be an annoyance, but...

I noticed that you voted in favor of the Humanitarian Intervention resolution now being considered.

I have followed the arguments about this resolution closely in the UN forum http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread...13&page=1&pp=15 and I am greatly concerned about potential abuse of process in this resolution.

It allows for secret tribunals outside the UN forum to make a finding that genocide has occurred in a country, it provides the accused nationstate no opportunity to defend itself before the tribunal. It provides the accused nationstate no warning, even, of the impending invasion.

I think we all agree this is a wonderful idea, but I ask you to reconsider whether this incarnation of the resolution deserves your support.

Thank you again for your time.


Secret tribunals? The UN has already authorised The Pretenama Panel (which functions under various other resolutions) as a body to conduct trials regarding genocide.

And as for the warning part - if you warn someone they are going to be invaded because they are committing genocide, what do you think will happen? They will shore up their defences and continue the killing, or they will try to get all the killing done before the deadline so there will be no excuse to invade.

I realised there was some opposition to this, but quite honestly the entire opposite seems to be on the side of nations who want to commit genocide. The arguement has been made that the right to murder your population is defended under national sovereignty, and now you want a national leader who is killing and raping his people to be warned that someone is going to stop him?

Eon Convention on Genocide does that. If that is the entire purpose of this, this is a waste of the UN's time.


The convention indicates that it is not an excuse to invade other nations. This takes it a step further setting out the conditions under which a multinational army may use force to prevent, or intercede, in genocide.


That makes the resolution illegal by UN rules, which means it should be deleted and you either warned or ejected for breaking game rules.


Why? It doesn't single out states. It just says that a government found to be committing genocide may be stopped.


Oh, that only brings it from blatantly illegal to a sly way of going around game rules. Not illegal as a tactic, but also not honorable.


There are arguements to be made that all the resolutions that do not specifically mention "member nations" in them are the same. So would all those require repealing and re-writing?


I see nothing that prevents you from attacking and leaving them in ruins anyway. It is not supported by anything I have read in the resolution or previous resolutions. Provide evidence for this.


Then you are not reading it hard enough.


Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.


I think that should be enough evidence.



Logical fallacy, already dealt with by previous posts you are conveniently ignoring. Deal with the challenges and methods of abusing this that have been brought up, which were brought up pages ago.

As it stands, the case for this resolution is resting on weak ground that requires ignoring pages of arguements against it to even be worthy of consideration.

Most of the arguements either consist of people not realising The Panel's involvement, or arguing that genocide is the right of every leader under National Sovereignty. The one arguement that doesn't fit that is a somewhat paranoid one.

Sunimir will gladly support any effort on stopping this resolution to be passed. After a lengthy reconsideration, Sunimir notes that leaving the UN on account of tis resolution is not an acceptable option, but will rather fight the militaristic aura of it by diplomatic means.

For all intended purposes, this can indeed be viewed as a statement of intent, where an argumented repeal of this resolution will be proposed immediately, should the resolution be passed, for watever reason.

All interested nations are invited to join in the drafting of the repeal proposal, so that it will be as effective as possible.

Oddly enough, I am considering leaving if this fails. Because this whole time I have been operating under the assumption that the UN was here to make things better, not for petty dictators to hide behind so they can freely commit genocide and have it defended as national sovereignty, while all the other nations stand and watch the murder of thousands of innocents, all the while wringing their hands and sending strongly worded memos.

Eon Convention on Genocide does that. If that is the entire purpose of this, this is a waste of the UN's time.


No. The Eon Convention only punishes transgressors after the genocide has occurred, and makes the act illegal. All well and good. But it doesn't nothing to stop the genocide once ithas started. This proposal does. If the people are crying out for help, and instead we give them only international condemnation of the event and a bit of sympathy, well what use is that? This proposal actually helps them when they need it most.

My proposed telegram for the opposition campaign.

It allows for secret tribunals outside the UN forum to make a finding that genocide has occurred in a country, it provides the accused nationstate no opportunity to defend itself before the tribunal. It provides the accused nationstate no warning, even, of the impending invasion.


It does provide a warning. This resolution is the warning: Commit genocide and prepare for intervention.

Oddly enough, I am considering leaving if this fails. Because this whole time I have been operating under the assumption that the UN was here to make things better, not for petty dictators to hide behind so they can freely commit genocide and have it defended as national sovereignty, while all the other nations stand and watch the murder of thousands of innocents, all the while wringing their hands and sending strongly worded memos.

As cute and endearing it is to see some delegates take "all considerations into account", "try to protect the innocent", and "stamp out global genocide with a single swipe", it is sad to see that the esteemed delegate has no concept whatsoever of what the debate at hand is about.

We do NOT oppose the bannign and sanctioning of genocide, however we DO oppose a resolution that is full of legal loopholes that can be used for uni/bi/tri/oligo-lateral military attacks on fellow UN member states. We also oppose resolutions threatening the use of military force upon autocratic regimes. Many enlightened autocrats have changed their people's lives for the better, and if a state decides to follow the POLITICAL SYSTEM of tyranny, it should have no reason to fear an attack by its neighbors. The resolution makes room for blatant and disgusting warmongering on vague grounds, and the fact that Tilenca supports it with all but a carte blanche is nothing if not dusturbing.

That is why Sunimir will seak alliances to repeal this sahameful abhorration as soon as possible and if needed, try to replace it with a resolution that kekeps in mind the fact that the UN claims to be a civilized and humanitarian body, and not an alliance of military bully states.

We also oppose resolutions threatening the use of military force upon autocratic regimes. Many enlightened autocrats have changed their people's lives for the better, and if a state decides to follow the POLITICAL SYSTEM of tyranny, it should have no reason to fear an attack by its neighbors. .

And yet if it truly was a benevolent autocracy, etc, doing wonderful things for its people, then said autocrat would have absolutely nothing to fear from this proposal. No genocide would be occurring. The people would have popular support from its nation. Both these factors forbidding intervention.

Oh, for the love of god, spare us with the nonsense, please.

Quoted from the resolution:
...aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale...

Tyranny is an autocratic form of government, and the term has absolutely nothing to do with how benevolent the regime is or not. The proposal states in no vague terms that it is AIMED AT ENDING TYRANNY. Also, the use of the word "or" between the aims of the resolution makes them independent clauses as opposed to correlated. In layman's terms, being merely an autocratic regime, and not having committed genocide or any (-vague-) human rights abuses would qualify a nation for intervention and disaster.

I would like to ask the delegate of Gwenstefani not to offend and ridicule this body by attempting to cover the true wording of the resolution with such transparent veils.

Sunimir will gladly support any effort on stopping this resolution to be passed. After a lengthy reconsideration, Sunimir notes that leaving the UN on account of tis resolution is not an acceptable option, but will rather fight the militaristic aura of it by diplomatic means.

For all intended purposes, this can indeed be viewed as a statement of intent, where an argumented repeal of this resolution will be proposed immediately, should the resolution be passed, for watever reason.

All interested nations are invited to join in the drafting of the repeal proposal, so that it will be as effective as possible.

Since so many people responded favorably to the idea of an opposition campaign, we might as well just coordinate here.

The strategy is pretty simple, really.
Voting ends in two and a half days (something like 11pm on Monday in California).

My intent is to take the delegate votes list, import it into excel so I can sort it by the number of votes each delegate controls, then send personalized telegrams to the biggest delegates begging them to change their votes and explaining why I think this resolution is a mistake.

I posted my first draft of the telegram on the humanitarian intervention thread. None of the really big players have voted yet - the biggest delegate in favor is a great guy I've spoken with before who controls 50 votes. I think my telegram may need some work, since even he hasn't responded to it.

I telegrammed the top 6 or 8 the day before yesterday to see what my response rate would be like, and i'm not encouraged. Only 1 changed their vote.

I may have to let this effort wither on the vine, because I've got a very busy weekend here and the telegrams should really go out by tonight or tomorrow morning if they're to have any effect.

If you want to try the campaign, keep in mind a couple of Dale Carnegie principles:

1. Personalize the greeting in each telegram. It only takes an extra 5 seconds, and it will increase the favorable response rate dramatically.

2. Take a couple seconds to look at the delegate's country description and include a p.s. about their flag or their national animal or something. People are justifiably proud of the work they've put into their nationstates. Again, this will increase the favorable response rate.

3. Don't send more than one telegram per delegate. Coordinate amongst yourselves so you don't hit the same people.

4. Many delegates actually do vote the consensus of their regions and won't change their votes. Don't get angry or discouraged at them.

Considering the current votes on the resolution and the deadline for the voting, that may be a lost cause. The best way about it would be to write an elaborate reppeal that summarizes the reasons on why the resolution is inpermissible. That way, the information represented and debated upon so well on here will be available to all.

Oddly enough, I am considering leaving if this fails. Because this whole time I have been operating under the assumption that the UN was here to make things better, not for petty dictators to hide behind so they can freely commit genocide and have it defended as national sovereignty, while all the other nations stand and watch the murder of thousands of innocents, all the while wringing their hands and sending strongly worded memos.
Oh, don't be like that.

My opposition to this resolution is not based on a desire to protect petty dictators.

My opposition to this resolution is based on my projection that it will be used abusively and does not contain sufficient protections against abuse.

You're proud of the Eon Convention and the Pretenama Panel. I have to say, based on what I've seen in this discussion, Pretenama was a mistake and needs to be changed.

The day after this resolution passes I'm going to get 7 other delegates who've been opposed to it and we'll convene a Pretenama panel off-site and convict some innocent nation. An innocent but annoying nation.

After we get that nation deleted, I'm going to use that abuse as a reason to launch a repeal campaign.

The last post by asshelmetta rings very true. The act is not completely rid of all loopholes. However, I am supporting this act because it does more good than the one loophole pointed out. I would wish for mabye another act that would prevent abusive use of this act from coming into play. I would like to see someone write it, and I would endorse it instantaneously. I think this act does more good though, so I am supporting that, with the hope for further closure on the loopholes, and the hope that nations will not use the act abusively.

As cute and endearing it is to see some delegates take "all considerations into account", "try to protect the innocent", and "stamp out global genocide with a single swipe", it is sad to see that the esteemed delegate has no concept whatsoever of what the debate at hand is about.


TWO nations have said that this resolution interferes with their national sovereignty to govern their nation as they wish.
At least three nations have said that violance is not the answer, and that diplomacy and sancations are the only thing that should be used to stop genocide.

I think it is safe to say that I do understand the arguements being put forth here.

Oh, don't be like that.

My opposition to this resolution is not based on a desire to protect petty dictators.


See my previous posts - that people have argued that this resolution violates their national sovereignty. I am pretty sure that protecting the right of someone to commit genocide by opposing this resolution is not the act of a nice guy :}


My opposition to this resolution is based on my projection that it will be used abusively and does not contain sufficient protections against abuse.


I disagree.


You're proud of the Eon Convention and the Pretenama Panel. I have to say, based on what I've seen in this discussion, Pretenama was a mistake and needs to be changed.


I disagree even more. The Pretenama Panel was originally designed as an international panel to try people accused of genocide, without speaking as to how the people should be brought before the Panel in the first place. And given that it is guided by a number of legal resolutions I think that it does not need to be changed in it's original format under The Eon Convention.


The day after this resolution passes I'm going to get 7 other delegates who've been opposed to it and we'll convene a Pretenama panel off-site and convict some innocent nation. An innocent but annoying nation.


I look forward to being accused. And - by the by - it's fifteen nations, not seven.


After we get that nation deleted, I'm going to use that abuse as a reason to launch a repeal campaign.

Well - since I am innocent, but annoying, I figure that it will most likely be me :}

Could someone explain how this resolution could be abused? I dont see how thats possible, its a protection resolution..

Most esteemed delegate of Kamuras. Your country abuses its people, we hear that several hundred have gone missing in the recent weeks, and that you pay no regard to the very human rights you abuse massively.

Now... Surely, Asshelmeta believes the same about your country, on the basis of information we're not compelled to disclose, and we are in the process of getting a Pretenama Panel together. Statesmen have been contacted, and as soon as we get another reply or two, you are condemned to an armageddon of fire by the militaries of the very countries mentione above.

Power up your SAM sites, put on your helmets, hide your wives before the tanks roll in. You will be destroyed, and then we may or may not help you rebuild.

You can expect getting a telegram like that, only as of this weekend, it wil have an addendum of being blessed by the UN and very much legal. Hope you can sleep peacefully.

oh alright, i understand your arguement now.
heh, when i first looked at that i was like "You have got to be kidding me"
Well, that is an interesting arguement. You actually made me consider voting against it. Congratulations.

Edit: The deleted post, was my origional reaction. Apologies if you saw it.

"RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments...." is to protect human rights understates the proper purpose of government. Rather, I suggest the overriding purpose of states is to do so. No government can rightly claim legitimacy unless its number one job is to protect human rights. Suggesting such protections are a "major purpose" is to suggest there are other duties that, compared to a government's human rights duties, are of equal importance. That cannot be the case.

I look forward to being accused. And - by the by - it's fifteen nations, not seven.

Well - since I am innocent, but annoying, I figure that it will most likely be me :}
You're neither innocent enough, or annoying enough.

The way I read it, 2 lawyers from each nation means 8 nations minimum.

Most esteemed delegate of Kamuras. Your country abuses its people, we hear that several hundred have gone missing in the recent weeks, and that you pay no regard to the very human rights you abuse massively.

Now... Surely, Asshelmeta believes the same about your country, on the basis of information we're not compelled to disclose, and we are in the process of getting a Pretenama Panel together. Statesmen have been contacted, and as soon as we get another reply or two, you are condemned to an armageddon of fire by the militaries of the very countries mentione above.

Power up your SAM sites, put on your helmets, hide your wives before the tanks roll in. You will be destroyed, and then we may or may not help you rebuild.

You can expect getting a telegram like that, only as of this weekend, it wil have an addendum of being blessed by the UN and very much legal. Hope you can sleep peacefully.
An unfortunate example, given Kamuras' complaint in the moderation forum.

No, I'm thinking some big, powerful, well-liked nation. Maybe not one from the UN. Or maybe one of the delegates from the feeder regions, if one of them votes in favor ;).

I don't think any telegram will be necessary. I think it'd be better for the victim to find out their country was deleted, create a new nationstate, go ask why in the moderation forum, and get pointed to the repeal thread on the UN forum.

An unfortunate example, given Kamuras' complaint in the moderation forum.

No, I'm thinking some big, powerful, well-liked nation. Maybe not one from the UN. Or maybe one of the delegates from the feeder regions, if one of them votes in favor ;).

I don't think any telegram will be necessary. I think it'd be better for the victim to find out their country was deleted, create a new nationstate, go ask why in the moderation forum, and get pointed to the repeal thread on the UN forum.

Somehow i dont like that idea. Officially i am changing my vote to against.
Assh, of course i complained. The alternative was either have a ruined reputation by flamebaits, or start a flame war which would get us both deleted.

You're neither innocent enough, or annoying enough.

The way I read it, 2 lawyers from each nation means 8 nations minimum.

Then you misread it.



§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.

You're neither innocent enough, or annoying enough.


(smirk)

There are pages and pages on this resolution, and unfortunately I don't have the patience to read them all and check and see if what I'm about to post is a reiteration of other people's comments, so I apologize if that is the case.

This resolution, while admirable, definately violates some sovereignty rights and is beyond the scope of what the UN should be able to do. While in some cases genocide may be a very obvious and clear cut issue, there are times when it is not. How does one distinguish between an extremely bloody but completely legitimate civil war and genocide? If that situation should ever arise, the UN would find itself entering into a sovereign state and meddling in the future of their government. There are clear regulations as to human rights violations already in place. This resolution, with all due respect, oversteps the UN's bounds and should not be passed.

Heck, part of me says it could be taken a step further. A Kriovalian citizen enters an otherwise acceptable country and commits a minor crime. Upon arrest, Krioval issues all manner of diplomatic challenges to the arrest, and (in what would be considered a grand overreaction), accuses the other nation of human rights violations that merit convention of the Pretanama Panel. Krioval then maneuvers, politically, into getting several other delegates on the Panel who are sympathetic to Krioval's aims, namely to discredit the other nation's claims that the arrest was valid.

Most of the time, I would expect such a gambit to fail. However, there would eventually be a time where this would succeed. In that case, Krioval and others, now wrapped in the cloak of self-righteousness and armed with a blessing from the United Nations, proceeds to invade and depose the rightful government of the other nation, install a puppet regime or partition the region (otherwise known as the "victim" by this point), and in the very definition of a travesty of justice, pat themselves on the back for stamping out a government hostile to civil rights! All the assurances to the otherwise are moot if the Panel votes to convict and can muster the barest of arguments to the UN as a whole as to why this should proceed. As to the assurances that the UN will supervise the intervention, I am more than convinced that debate can be effectively delayed or prolonged until a point where the debate is rendered moot; the nation in question is totally subjugated.

I'd like to repeat that I'd have no opposition to this resolution whatsoever if it held itself to genocide or ethnic cleansing, and I'd probably approve it despite a few reservations if "extreme human rights violations" remained on the list - though I'd ask for a clarification. It's the "ending tyranny" qualification that raises issues for me, as it can be too loosely invoked.

I apologize if this has already been covered in more detail than this. I also apologize for having my hand forced by my region; I will likely be voting in favor of this resolution before the day ends.

Wrong. This proposal is giving grounds to invade another nation. It does not say "under The Eon Convention you can now invade". It says that nations are permitted to invade other nations under this proposal.
The Eon Convention says that it cannot be used to invade another nation. Clearly this proposal says that it can, since it uses the Eon Convention to provide the "proof" for an invasion.

Originally Posted by Gwenstefani
No, because they still have to go the UN panel and have their grounds, aims and means tested and approved before any "blessing" is given.


My response:
And (of course) all of the members of the UN panel are angels incarnate, who are not subject to political pressure, bribes, or overt intimidation.


Originally Posted by Gwenstefani
No, not on any whim. AGAIN, only if *shouts* GENOCIDE IS OCCURRING!!!!


My response:
According to whom? Who will investigate the allegations? Who has the burden of proof? What if the accused nation refuses to talk to the investigators for their own reasons? Who decides if it really is genocide or "other massive abuses of human rights"?

Good intentions do not necessarily make good law.

"What are the facts? Again and again and again- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget “what the stars foretell”, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future, and facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

Despite lots of hystrionics and appeals to emotion by the author of this resolution and some of its supporters, my objections (a few of which are quoted above) have yet to be addressed.

This resolution lends itself to abuse, with no recourse by falsely accused nations to prevent the abuses. The probability of unanswerable abuse of this resolution has never once been acknowledged or addressed by the author or the proposal's supporters.

As with all legislation, vague terms and imprecise language have enormous potential for catastrophic consequences.

"The Law of Unintended Consequences is one piece of legislation that always passes."

Then you misread it.

§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.

Perhaps the way out of this is to reform or replace the Pretenama Panel.
Is it part of the Eon Convention? I'd hate to have to try to repeal the whole Eon Convention. Maybe we can find a way to change the operating procedures of Pretenama.

There are pages and pages on this resolution, and unfortunately I don't have the patience to read them all and check and see if what I'm about to post is a reiteration of other people's comments, so I apologize if that is the case.

This resolution, while admirable, definately violates some sovereignty rights and is beyond the scope of what the UN should be able to do. While in some cases genocide may be a very obvious and clear cut issue, there are times when it is not. How does one distinguish between an extremely bloody but completely legitimate civil war and genocide? If that situation should ever arise, the UN would find itself entering into a sovereign state and meddling in the future of their government. There are clear regulations as to human rights violations already in place. This resolution, with all due respect, oversteps the UN's bounds and should not be passed.

The only national sovereignty rights it violates is the right for a leader to massacre his people. Which I think is an acceptable right to violate.

The Eon Convention says that it cannot be used to invade another nation. Clearly this proposal says that it can, since it uses the Eon Convention to provide the "proof" for an invasion.

Not to engage in semantics, but this proposal is using The Pretenama Panel to justify invasion. The EON Convention is not being used - only a body established in it.

Perhaps the way out of this is to reform or replace the Pretenama Panel.
Is it part of the Eon Convention? I'd hate to have to try to repeal the whole Eon Convention. Maybe we can find a way to change the operating procedures of Pretenama.

Ok - you did read the part about the independent panel? About the challanges etc?

And yeah - The Pretenama Panel (which ironically translates as Hopeful Peace!) is the body that will try people who are accused of genocide. So without it The Convention pretty much is pointless. So the whole thing would have to be repealed and rewritten - and it would still require an international body to conduct any trials and so we would be back to here.

Not to engage in semantics, but this proposal is using The Pretenama Panel to justify invasion. The EON Convention is not being used - only a body established in it.
That statement implies that the Pretenama Panel could be revised without repealing the whole EON Convention.


I think I have found the subject of my first NSUN proposal.

That statement implies that the Pretenama Panel could be revised without repealing the whole EON Convention.


I think I have found the subject of my first NSUN proposal.

Revised in what way? And how would you get around the "no amendment rules"? And should this be in another thread?

TilEnca, how does the Pretanama panel choose the 15 nations on the panel? People here seem to think that you can choose 15 of your buddies to sit on it, but that certainly wasn't my interpretation. And if, as I thought it was, a random selection, then it becomes much more difficult to abuse the panel in the ways people are fearing. Maybe a couple of them could be persuaded by illegitimate means, but the entire panel? I think not.

While in some cases genocide may be a very obvious and clear cut issue, there are times when it is not. How does one distinguish between an extremely bloody but completely legitimate civil war and genocide?
Genocides, by definition, are specifically targeted by the government at an ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. Civil wars are started by a rebellious faction that turns against the government. I am fairly certain that the said panel would be able to distinguish between the two.

However, I still think the initial inoperative clause regarding national sovereignty is unnecessary.

TilEnca, how does the Pretanama panel choose the 15 nations on the panel? People here seem to think that you can choose 15 of your buddies to sit on it, but that certainly wasn't my interpretation. And if, as I thought it was, a random selection, then it becomes much more difficult to abuse the panel in the ways people are fearing. Maybe a couple of them could be persuaded by illegitimate means, but the entire panel? I think not.
There is no UN body devoted to picking the 15 members.
The only way I can interpret it is that you round up 14 friends and declare yourselves a Panel.

TilEnca may be right - discussion of problems with Pretenama deserves its own thread.

My lords, my ladies.

Our attempts to stop this bill that greatly intereferes with our national soveriegnty is failing. We must begin a message campaign. WE MUST STOP THIS AT ALL COSTS. IF NOT, OUR NATIONS, NO MATTER HOW FREE THEY ARE, ARE ALL IN DANGER FROM THESE POWER HUNGRY NATIONS ATTEMPTING TO FORCE OUR NATIONS INTO A CERTAIN IDEAL THEY FEEL IS "RIGHT."

THIS IS NOT RIGHT. I AM BACKED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE UN DELEGATION, AND I DO NOT STAND FOR ENDING "TYRANNY" UNDER THE PRETENSE--A UN PRETENSE--OF IT BEING "LEGAL."

OUR NATIONS STAND FOR TYRANNY, NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY, AND EVEN CIVIL RIGHTS. I DO NOT ALLOW CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, BUT I AM TOLERANT OF IT. I AM NOT A "TYRANT," BUT I AM TOLERANT OF THEM. AND I DO STAND FOR NATIONAL SOVERIGNTY OVER ALL.

Our nations must stop this bill that pretends to be in the better interest of our nations, but it truly isn't. We must not allow for our national rights to be infringed upon. We must stop this bill.