NationStates Jolt Archive

Please read my Conflict Management Act currently on page 17 of pending UN resolutions.

It is an act to protect unarmed civilians all over the world against violence of raging wars or post-war situations.

I still need many approvals, and thanks in advance to those who will support this important act.

This one is really important to Civil Rights people, you should at least consider it.
If anyone has any remarks, let me know.

The first comment would be to post a copy on here - that way we can all see on what we are bein asked to comment.

Conflict Management act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Tackisistan

Description: This act's goal is to create new mandates for UN troops in conflict areas and new guidelines for the UN officials to follow when treating such conflicts.
This act is pointed specifically towards civil wars and post-war situations. This act will allow unarmed civilians all over the world to be protected by the UN, thereby limiting the possibilities of genocides.

Part I: Guidelines for UN officials

§1 UN officials are to respond to every conflict in which unprotected civilians are in danger, either by violence or by hunger.

§2 UN officials are allowed to stage peace-keeping missions even against the will of the governments involved in the conflict.

§3 UN officials are to decide which countries will deliver UN troops in the region, giving an advantage to troops who have experience with the situation.

§4 UN officials must appoint 1 official to run the multi-national UN army in the region. This official will be UN's authority in that region.

§5 UN officials who deliberatly refuse to take action against staging genocides or violent conflicts can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Part II: Mandates of the UN troops

§1 All UN troops in a region are to act in order with the orders of the UN official in the region.

§2 Only troops who have received special training on peace keeping missions are allowed to send troops.

§3 States which have no specially trained troops are allowed to support peace-keeping missions by deliverin military equipment ranging from vehicles to housing.

§4 UN troops will not deliberatly attack the fighting parties in order to stop them.

§5 UN troops are allowed to imprison high-ranked officers of the fighting armies. They are also allowed to question them.

§6 UN troops are allowed to force laws in the area in which they operate and they are allowed to act against any action which is not in order with these laws.

§7 UN troops will be in charge of any food and medicine programs in the region, making sure that food and medicines get to the people who need them.

§8 UN troops are allowed to engage when they are under threat.

§9 UN troops are allowed to engage when unarmed civilians are under threat.

§10 UN troops will rotate in terms of maximum 4 months to prevent frustration and stress.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 26 2005


I realise you havve put a lot of work in to this, and it does seem pretty well worked out.

However the UN does not have a standing army, so there are no such things as "UN Troops". Which makes the entire proposal invalid.

Can I suggest that you look at it again, in light of this fact?

UN has no troops of it's own, that is correct, but the troops operating under the UN flag, the ones with Blue helmets and white vehicles are normally referred to as UN troops. The statute of these troops is not at discussion here, only their mandate, which is why I did not mention them.

I hope this clears that point up.

UN has no troops of it's own, that is correct, but the troops operating under the UN flag, the ones with Blue helmets and white vehicles are normally referred to as UN troops. The statute of these troops is not at discussion here, only their mandate, which is why I did not mention them.
Sorry, you're confusing the RL UN with the NS UN. We don't have Blue Helmet troops here, as any "troops operating under the UN flag" are illegal. TilEnca is correct. This proposal, while well presented, is moot.

Then I would refer to article 3 in Part I where it says that UN officials will appoint those troops when genocides or other massacres are about to happen.

Then I would refer to article 3 in Part I where it says that UN officials will appoint those troops when genocides or other massacres are about to happen.
Appointing a UN army is also illegal. Even if it's technically not.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

it's not being apointed as being an army of UN, it's being appointed to stop a certain genocide or massacre to which many inhabitants of our nations could fall. Outside this specific case the UN has no power over those troops, and of course anyone is free to redraw it's troops, or not to send troops at all. It is merely giving a helping hand to people in need.

You can't really say you have civil rights if you allow people to just be butchered without trying to rescue them.

Please take not of the fact that this act does not in anyway approve the creation of a UN military, it simply allows the UN to arrange a guidance for troops who operate in a region to halt certain massacres. These troops are not in anyway property of the UN, and when a state find it's troops should not follow the guidance of the UN officials they can redraw their troops. It is merely an organised form of cooperation between different armies in peace-keeping missions. The troops are called UN troops in the act, but this is only to have a general name for the different co-operating armies, nowhere in the Act is the creation of a UN army mentioned.

You can't really say you have civil rights if you allow people to just be butchered without trying to rescue them.
Yeah we don't care about people... all that campaigning for rights was a clever deception.

We have laws against Genocide. We have rules against a UN army or police force and I assume this include a not-army.

ETA: besides we have no army anyway.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

laws against genocide are only effective to punish people after the genocide is done. I understand I made some mistake, let's see what would be agreeable to stop genocides before or while they are happening and I will then list a new act.

The only way to stop genocides before they start is to have forewarning they will happen. Not likely.

Genocides can be quite early spotted and easily stopped if troops would be handy (cfr. real world Rwanda, Darfour...), the question is how to make this possible while not acting against UN resolutions that prohibit the forming of any army under UN flag.

The only way to stop genocides before they start is to have forewarning they will happen. Not likely.
Technically it's not a crime if you haven't done it yet.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Is this not referring to the real-world UN-peacekeepers?

In which case, is this not violation for the rules that govern proposals for UN resolutions, on the grounds that it is proposing to the formation of an exsisting real-life body?

this isn't a law about punishing people for genocides, it's an act to stop them from happening by protecting the weaker party, or just creating a Demilitarized zone in between them.

Is this not referring to the real-world UN-peacekeepers?

In which case, is this not violation for the rules that govern proposals for UN resolutions, on the grounds that it is proposing to the formation of an exsisting real-life body?

It is not, it's looking for a way to prevent genocides and massacres in Nationstates.

It must be said, that it does sound similar to the way the real UN officials and peacekeepers conduct themselves, but, I guess that is the whole point.

Okay, so, from what understand, the resolution is essentially a code of conduct for UN officials and UN peace-keepers. It has very little affect on actual UN-member states.

In which case, I may as well support it.

This resolution has already been rejected tho, I am trying to find out what people think should change to be able to form a new one.

Bahgum's most glorious president, extends (again) his offer to dispatch the Bahgumian Mother in Law squad to any war torn nation to keep the peace. Remember, no-one misbehaves if they are too terrified!!!

That's what the idea of this Act was, people sending their troops to war-torn territories to end the fighting as part of a UN program, but I should remake this act in which the line between these troops and the UN is well defined.

Genocides can be quite early spotted and easily stopped if troops would be handy (cfr. real world Rwanda, Darfour...), the question is how to make this possible while not acting against UN resolutions that prohibit the forming of any army under UN flag.

Wrong. I can commit genocide just by opening a plastic container in a shopping mall. You'd be surprised how easy it is.

Technically it's not a crime if you haven't done it yet.

Unless we're talking about transtemporal crimes...

Or intent to commit...

The EON Convention was written to punish those who commit genocide, not to warrant the invasion of a country where one is in progress. Now I realise stopping it rather than punishing those who are guilty is a better idea, but because the UN has no army, and can not have an army, The Convention was foribidden from setting one up to deal with genocides.

But say my army and DLE's army and The Black New World's army decided that the genocide going on in GeminiLand should be stopped. We would be able to invade - because no one can stop us - but we would be doing it of our own accord. The UN would have no control over what we did, to whom we did it and the way we did it. We three would be in charge of the army, and it would be our orders, and our directions that they followed. As far as I am aware, the UN may not command any army in battle (or in peace).

Which means that the UN can not appoint generals, admirals or (what ever the hell the air force call them) to run the battle, because that would put it under the control of the UN.