NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is another try to form a peace-keeping system within the UN after the last one failed, so here goes. It's not a proposal yet, I want to hear you people first and perhaps make some changes.

The purpose of this proposal is to create a standardised operation of UN to treat conflicts such as civil wars or conflict getting out of hand. In accordance with previous regulations UN is not allowed to have it's own military and so this will not be so.
This means that any military operation included will have to fall back on the armies of several nations who wish to follow UN guidelines within the region of conflict. The armies themselves are still commanded by their own ruler and are in no way obliged to follow UN orders, they act strictly on a voluntary base.
This means that the proposal will be built up of two parts, one regulating the guidelines for UN officials and one stating the restrictions for armies to be allowed to take part in these operations.

Part I: UN Official's guidelines

§1 Each intervention has to be supported by several UN delegates who will then create a special commission to organise the peace-keeping mission.

§2 This commission will be responsible for allowing several nations to operate within this operation according to the restrictions explained in part II.

§3 The commission has the right to force laws upon war-torn territory if they are relevant to solving the conflict (for example a temporary weapon-ban in certain territory).

§4 The commission will assign territories to each nation operating within the mission according the the size and equipment of the units assigned to this mission.

§5 The commission has the duty to set up refugee camps and make sure that civilians are protected from fighting.

§6 The commission will also regulate food and medicine programs through the different military units who will protect those programs.

§7 The commission is target to trial if the UN delegates find it has neglected to protect threatened civilians or abused it's powers in any way.

Part II: Restrictions for military units

§1 The military units have to belong to a member of the UN.

§2 The state delivering these units may not have recently been involved in agression against another UN member.

§3 The units must have had special peace-keeping training in order to be allowed to operate in such missions.

§4 Nations who can not produce units because of restrictions 1, 2 or 3 may support the peace-keeping mission by delivering military equipment (such as vehicles or logistic aid), food, medicines or financial aid.

§5 Medical military units only fall under restriction 1.

"The Hundred Worlds of Lord Atum approve of this measure! It is the first step on the road to creating a more stable world for us all! We endorse this proposal wholeheartedly. We hope that this wise use of the resources of UN Member States will allow the entire international community to profit by it."

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum the Great and Noble to the United Nations.

I, as president of the Democratic Republic of Tackisistan thanks you for your support, does everybody think this is ready to be made an official proposal?

I only really have one objection to it, but since it is never going to affect me I don't see the objection being all that large.

I would have strong objections about my troops - my sons and daughters - being under the command of someone who isn't from my nation. If we are going to fight and die for something, I want someone I trust leading those who are doing the fighting. So it would have to be one of my commanders, or a commander (or delegate) from a nation that I have total trust in.

But since my nation doesn't go to war against or in other nations, we would never be part of a peace-keeping force. So I can't imagine this proposal would ever apply to us anyway.

Well this problem has been met in the proposal, Every nation keeps track of what his own army does and has it's own officers in command of their units, they merely follow the guidelines of the UN commission, these officers are free to doubt these guidelines and to contact their home-nation and perhaps even to leave the mission if their objection is large enough to pose a problem to that mission. Small problems could be solved by perhaps swapping locations with another nation's units. So there is absolutely no time when your troops are delivered to UN command (that would be illegal since UN is not allowed to have an own army and thereby can also not command an army) The UN commission merely provides an organisation for the troops and lays out the missions but it is each nation's right to object those missions or to leave the mission.

Ok, this is another try to form a peace-keeping system within the UN after the last one failed, so here goes. It's not a proposal yet, I want to hear you people first and perhaps make some changes.

DLE doesn't seem to be around, so let's get it on!


Part I: UN Official's guidelines

§1 Each intervention has to be supported by several UN delegates who will then create a special commission to organise the peace-keeping mission.

Several? There are thousands of UN delegates. If I wanted to, I could get "several" to agree your nation needs intervention and invade you. Under NSUN auspices, even.


§2 This commission will be responsible for allowing several nations to operate within this operation according to the restrictions explained in part II.

§3 The commission has the right to force laws upon war-torn territory if they are relevant to solving the conflict (for example a temporary weapon-ban in certain territory).

That's a beaut. So when my alliance invades you (for no other reason than that we decide we should), we can pass whatever laws we want? *cue evile laughter*.
You should probably put in a clause about the laws complying with all NSUN resolutions.


§4 The commission will assign territories to each nation operating within the mission according the the size and equipment of the units assigned to this mission.

§5 The commission has the duty to set up refugee camps and make sure that civilians are protected from fighting.

§6 The commission will also regulate food and medicine programs through the different military units who will protect those programs.

So, we can partition the nation we invaded, force all the citizens into concentrationinternment camps, and take all the food and drugs for our own populations?

What I'm getting at is, there may be some unintended side effects here...


§7 The commission is target to trial if the UN delegates find it has neglected to protect threatened civilians or abused it's powers in any way.

"the UN delegates"? the ones who invaded and occupied? a majority of all delegates? or, "several" uninvolved delegates?


Part II: Restrictions for military units

§1 The military units have to belong to a member of the UN.

§2 The state delivering these units may not have recently been involved in agression against another UN member.

§3 The units must have had special peace-keeping training in order to be allowed to operate in such missions.

§4 Nations who can not produce units because of restrictions 1, 2 or 3 may support the peace-keeping mission by delivering military equipment (such as vehicles or logistic aid), food, medicines or financial aid.

§5 Medical military units only fall under restriction 1.
These restrictions are all meaningless. Sorry, that's harsh.

Uh, can't think of a nicer way to put it, though. From section I, it sounded like the troops had to belong to delegates, not just member states. "Recently" is a significant loophole that any of us can wriggle through. Any nation that wants to, can merely state that its units have had peace-keeping training. And the 4th item undoes everything - it effectively lets non-NSUN nations grab some of the territory being annexed.

I would suggest you propose this after ICJ has passed, and make it the arbiter. Strike the parts about the occupying nations having control over internment camps and food supplies and replace it with something about supporting the NSUN Red Cross.

That's the problem with so many of these new proposals. A lot of the specifics are left out ("several" UN nations, when "UN Delegates decide). This one's better than most, though. I like the concepts a lot, just add in some info that would let it actually be put to use and you have my support.

there are no internment camps, there's is no annexation and there is nothing wrong with point 4 (how do you grasp land by delivering some food?)

You obviously don't understand what this is about, it's about peace-keeping missions, as stated a trial can be started against those abusing the powers in this proposal. So just invading me with a few without a good reason is illegal, just the way it would be if you'd invade me without this proposal. So I don't really see what your point is.

Narqopia, it is still open to changes, so if you have any proposals for the "several" bits I would be happy to accept them.

I suggest that at least 1% of all delegates must support the peace-keeping mission and form a commission. (tell me if you want it to be more or less, right now it would mean at least 24 delegates are needed to start such mission)

and the refugee camps in §5 of part I only says they have a duty to SET UP refugee camps incase there are any refugees, (I will state this specifically when I make it into a proposal) thy are no supposed to force civilians in them.

I decided to add a Part III: specifications of peace-keeping training
to make sure that the training is somewhat quality-controlled.

§1 Peace-keeping relies for a substantial part on riot control techniques using non-lethal weapons and these should be well practiced by peace-keeping units.

§2 Peace-keeping includes diplomacy towards different ethnic groups and parties and as such the units will need training in social skills.

§3 Psychological warfare is essential in peace-keping missions and units involved should be proficient in using several techniques (such as questioning).

§4 The quality of these skills is to be determined by UN inspectors in order for those units to be allowed to take part in a peace-keeping mission.
-----------------------------------------------

Is there anything else you would like added?
Or a reason that you would vote against it, let me know please.

Just out of curiousness - no nation can be forced in to a peace-keeping role, can they?

This proposal is still far too vague as it is written, and neither I (Nor the peace loving peoples of my nation) support this proposal in its current form. I suggest re-writing with specifics as to number of nations require, how a trial would be conducted, etc.

there are no internment camps, there's is no annexation and there is nothing wrong with point 4 (how do you grasp land by delivering some food?)

You obviously don't understand what this is about, it's about peace-keeping missions, as stated a trial can be started against those abusing the powers in this proposal. So just invading me with a few without a good reason is illegal, just the way it would be if you'd invade me without this proposal. So I don't really see what your point is.

You dont' get it. I could get four UN representatives ("Several") to declare invading you would be a good thing. We then stomp on your country, loot everything, and do so with the auspices and blessings of the UN.

Not a good idea.

you people should real all replies to a topic, the issue has been adressed, if you're not willing to read everything then don't speak.

And to TilEnca, nobody can be forced in a peace-keeping mission in any way possible.

I suggested at least 1% of delegates to agree on the mission for those who can't be arsed to scroll up, but this number is at debate here, so any suggestions are welcome.

And for the trial, how a Trial is done is the subject of international law, you don't have a different kind of trial for each crime.

Since no one seems to have come out and said it yet, let alone noticed,

This Proposal / Idea Is ILLEGAL Under The Game Rules

If you'll direct your attention to the Stickies and the F.A.Q. you should see mention of the fact you may not propose changes to game mechanics or institute peace keeping / military organisations / actions with the U.N.

I'm not saying exactly where in the faint hope you'll read beyond where this data is and learn more then the little which most you seem to just know now.

well, it's not a military organisation of the UN, nor is it a military action by the UN, so all that could take effect on this is the Peace Keeping thing, but could you tell me where it says that? I've been unable to retrieve it.

well, it's not a military organisation of the UN, nor is it a military action by the UN, so all that could take effect on this is the Peace Keeping thing, but could you tell me where it says that? I've been unable to retrieve it.

"The UN should create <multinational organisation>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.

Proposals to create UN militaries are illegal: proposals to create military unions not under the direct auspices of the UN are 'unworthy of the UN's consideration.' Such things should be organised in the RP forums, they're not a matter to be decided by UN resolution because a UN resolution affects all nations equally.

Since every nation would recieve $statboost from a UN resolution, it must have a global effect, not simply be a voluntary body.

Also:

§3 The commission has the right to force laws upon war-torn territory if they are relevant to solving the conflict (for example a temporary weapon-ban in certain territory).

Effect on non-members. Illegal.

i'm sorry but you are wrong.

It's not a military organisation by the UN, it's a blueprint for the UN to provide guidelines to military operations which totally depend on the nations taking part. So it's not illegal because of that.

And I'll remove §3 or replace it.
And this will influence all member states since they will provide more Human rights since by this act unarmed civilians can be protected by the UN (without the UN undertakes any illegal action). I could also change the name to "Civilian Protection Program" or something like that.

i'm sorry but you are wrong.

It's not a military organisation by the UN, it's a blueprint for the UN to provide guidelines to military operations which totally depend on the nations taking part. So it's not illegal because of that.

Actually, it is, because it's still a voluntary organisation and therefore does not equally effect all members. NSUN resolutions are laws, not guidelines, nations cannot participate in them if they want to because the stat boost is across the board.

And this will influence all member states since they will provide more Human rights since by this act unarmed civilians can be protected by the UN (without the UN undertakes any illegal action).

This resolution will not improve human rights in all member states, unless you're claiming all UN member states contain civilians who require military protection.

CIVILIAN PROTECTION PROPOSAL

Part I: UN Official's guidelines

§1 Each intervention has to be supported by at least 1% of all UN delegates who will then create a special commission to organise the civilian protection mission.

§2 This commission will be responsible for allowing several nations to operate within this operation according to the restrictions explained in part II.

§3 The commission can advise a weapons trade ban to the war-torn territory to the UN members. (they can not force this upon the members, they can only ask them for their assistance).

§4 The commission will assign territories to each nation operating within the mission according the the size and equipment of the units assigned to this mission.

§5 The commission has the duty to provide humane conditions for the civilians(by setting up refugee camps) and make sure that they are protected from fighting.

§6 The commission will also regulate food and medicine programs through the different military units who will protect those programs.

§7 The commission is target to trial if at least 6% of all UN delegates find it has neglected to protect threatened civilians or abused its powers in any way.

Part II: Restrictions for military units

§1 The military units have to belong to a member of the UN.

§2 The state delivering these units may not have been involved in agression against another UN member under the the current government.

§3 The units must have had special civilian-protection training in order to be allowed to operate in such missions.

§4 Nations who can not produce units because of restrictions §1, §2 or §3 may support the peace-keeping mission by delivering military equipment (such as vehicles or logistic aid), food, medicines or financial aid. They are not allowed to provide troops (note possible exception for medical units in §5).

§5 Medical military units only fall under restriction 1.

Part III: specifications of civilian-protection-training

§1 Protecting civilians relies for a substantial part on riot control techniques using non-lethal weapons and these should be well practiced by peace-keeping units.

§2 Protecting civilians includes diplomacy towards different ethnic groups and parties and as such the units will need training in social skills.

§3 Psychological warfare is essential in civilian-protection missions and units involved should be proficient in using several techniques (such as questioning).

§4 The quality of these skills is to be determined by UN inspectors in order for those units to be allowed to take part in a civilian protection mission.
------------------------------------------------------

Here's the reworked version right now, if you think anything should be changed, let me know.

This resolution will not improve human rights in all member states, unless you're claiming all UN member states contain civilians who require military protection.

Yes it will, because this allows intervention in case that happens, so it will boost human right since it delivers a way to aid those civilians whenever the situation would come up.

and to your first point, there are more then one kind of laws, some force something on all nations (as you described).

Other laws allow certaint things, to be able to react on certain situations.

Yes it will, because this allows intervention in case that happens, so it will boost human right since it delivers a way to aid those civilians whenever the situation would come up.

And how does that improve civil rights in the country doing the intervening? You're talking about another nation's civilians here, that doesn't justify an increase in your civil rights stat!

§1 Each intervention has to be supported by at least 1% of all UN delegates who will then create a special commission to organise the civilian protection mission.

Multinational entity: Illegal as has already been pointed out.

§7 The commission is target to trial if at least 6% of all UN delegates find it has neglected to protect threatened civilians or abused its powers in any way.

Game mechanics: No mechanism exists to uphold the decisions of this body.

§4 The quality of these skills is to be determined by UN inspectors in order for those units to be allowed to take part in a civilian protection mission.

Game mechanics: There's no way for this to be done within UN rules, and, again, it produces an unequal effect.

You don't understand, it's not about where they DO intervene, it's about where they CAN intervene. They CAN intervene everywhere when civilians are threatened, so that makes Human Right stronger.

It's not a multinational entity since there's no centralised command, only centralised advises, and I don't think there's a law against advising.

ok, I'll drop the inspection and trial issues, you're right they were wrong.

You don't understand, it's not about where they DO intervene, it's about where they CAN intervene. They CAN intervene everywhere when civilians are threatened, so that makes Human Right stronger.

Explain what additional rights are granted to all civilians in UN member nations, bearing in mind that military intervention is a matter of national security and not a human right. Are you seriously trying to claim civilians have the 'right' to armed intervention by foreign militaries?

It's not a multinational entity since there's no centralised command, only centralised advises, and I don't think there's a law against advising.

An advisory body made of UN members is still a multinational entity. What else is it going to be?

Well I'm saying every civilian has the right to be protected when threatened.

And it's no more a multinational entity then UN itself, if this is illegal then any UN resolution would be illegal too.

Well I'm saying every civilian has the right to be protected when threatened.

In which case nations with functional militaries gain nothing because their civilians already are protected and so do not benefit. Most civilians in UN member nations will gain nothing from this resolution.

And it's no more a multinational entity then UN itself, if this is illegal then any UN resolution would be illegal too.

When did the UN last pass a resolution creating itself, again? It cannot create additional multinational bodies under its control.

Dude, give me a break here. I'm not talking just abotu civilians threatened by foreign armies, also civilians threatened by their own army or rebels. So all civilians can be threatened. This would give UN members a chance to also protec those civilians that are being threatened in other nations.

and this isn't like a standalone entity, it's a group of nations saying "Let's do something good together" and as soon as that good has been done they disband. So it's not at all the creation of a multinational entity.

Dude, give me a break here. I'm not talking just abotu civilians threatened by foreign armies, also civilians threatened by their own army or rebels.

Do all civilians in all UN nations fit this description at this time?

So all civilians can be threatened. This would give UN members a chance to also protec those civilians that are being threatened in other nations.

The above '[...]by their own army[...]' implies you would be prepared to overthrow a nation's legitimate government with this body. That is an invasion, not 'protection.'

And you're dodging the question. What rights does this grant to people living in nations which are not at war and do not oppress civilians? How does protecting civilians in another country raise the civil rights of YOUR population?

and this isn't like a standalone entity, it's a group of nations saying "Let's do something good together" and as soon as that good has been done they disband. So it's not at all the creation of a multinational entity.

It is a law laying the groundwork for nations to come together, form a multinational body and say that. What it does afterwards is irrelevant.

overthrowing a government is nowhere mentiond, only PROTECTION OF THE THREATENED CIVILIANS, go get some glasses.

And I'm not evading the question, I answered, if you don't understand go back to school. Your own civilians are protected in a way that for example if you would be invaded or attacked by rebels supported by another nation, or attacked directly by another nation, UN members could use this to take action and protect your civilians if you would be incapable of doing so yourself (due to being overpowered or whatever).

And I'm still saying that there's no multinational body or entity or whatsoever because this isn't related on a centralised command anyhow. This commision doesn't make decisions, only suggestions so it has absolutely no power and is therefor as good as politically unexisting.

All this is it an attempt to create the possibility for these actions to be taken by UN members in cases of emergency, so that some rules and laws wouldn't take away necessary time when your civilians are being threatened.

overthrowing a government is nowhere mentiond, only PROTECTION OF THE THREATENED CIVILIANS, go get some glasses.

also civilians threatened by their own army

Unless the army is acting independantly of the government , destroying another nation's military involves removing those who gave it orders in the first place, ie the government.

Your own civilians are protected in a way that for example if you would be invaded or attacked by rebels supported by another nation, or attacked directly by another nation, UN members could use this to take action and protect your civilians if you would be incapable of doing so yourself (due to being overpowered or whatever).

Which adds nothing to the [i]personal freedoms a citizen is granted, ie his civil rights. If what you claim was true I would count the NATO pact among my 'rights!'

This commision doesn't make decisions, only suggestions so it has absolutely no power and is therefor as good as politically unexisting.

It is still a commision created under the auspices of UN law, which is illegal. What it does or what powers it has is irrelevent.

look man, if you're just gonna keep repeating the same thing and not read my replies or even try to understand them I'm not gonna keep having this discussion with you. SO last attempt:

This isn't about destroying militaries, it's not about going to war, it's about protectiong civilians by throwing up a defense around them. So that doesn't mean any government would be threatened.

And unlike NATO, this is about protecting people, individuals, not nations. So it very much adds to personal rights (the right to live a safe life).

look man, if you're just gonna keep repeating the same thing and not read my replies or even try to understand them I'm not gonna keep having this discussion with you. SO last attempt:

Considering GMC has the ability to:
Ban you from the forums
and/or
Delete your proposal
and/or
Eject you from the UN
and/or
Delete you from the game

Perhaps you should listen to his arguments. Especially since you are simply saying the same things over and over again as well. Since his opinion is the one that matters, you should give it some more thought, and think before you type.

This isn't about destroying militaries, it's not about going to war, it's about protectiong civilians by throwing up a defense around them. So that doesn't mean any government would be threatened.

I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of ways you can attack the military units of another nation without them declaring war on you. You would then have the choice of removing the entire regime or getting stomped. Regardless of whether it was a 'defence' or an 'offence,' the minute the first shot was fired at a unit of another nation's military you'd be at war with said nation.

The UN cannot declare war and you cannot [reasonably] declare war on the UN, so it can't happen.

And unlike NATO, this is about protecting people, individuals, not nations. So it very much adds to personal rights (the right to live a safe life).

Which is already guranteed to any nation taking part in this body by it's military, unless you're about to allow nations oppressing their populations to take part. In other words, nations taking part already guarantee their civilians these rights [not that the 'right to a safe life' is a right anyone can reasonably guarantee to anyone anyway] by virtue of their militaries. A second guarantee grants the man on the street no additional rights, hence there should be no bonus, hence this is not a human rights resolution.

look man, if you're just gonna keep repeating the same thing and not read my replies or even try to understand them I'm not gonna keep having this discussion with you. SO last attempt:

This isn't about destroying militaries, it's not about going to war, it's about protectiong civilians by throwing up a defense around them. So that doesn't mean any government would be threatened.

And unlike NATO, this is about protecting people, individuals, not nations. So it very much adds to personal rights (the right to live a safe life).


Tackisistan, I am new to this game too, but you are arguing with a GAME MODORATOR (look at the title under his name) that knows how this game works and he/she is just trying to explain to you why your proposal will not work. Don't take it personally, just move on.

I'm not taking it personally I just think he's wrong.
And I hope he doesn't take that personal either, this is a forum, a place for discussions and I wish to discuss this matter because I think it's a good idea.
I did agree with him that some things were wrong and I'll remove those too. But the idea that this is 1) not adding to civil right or 2) forming of a multinational entity is just wrong. But let's not let this discussion become the subject of this discussion, I was just discussing this matter with him, doesn't matter if he's mod or not.

And GMC, UN wouldn't declare war on anyone, it's simply like this;
Civilians are threatened, UN delegates decide to act and protect them before a genocide or something takes place, they move in military personnel to protect those civilians by throwing up a line of defense around them. The conflict that was taking place can still go on in any way it wants, and they will never even become target of those military units if they don't decide to try to break through that line of defense to harm the civilians.

And the Right to a safe live may exist, but the right to protect a threatened life isn't, and without that right, the right to a safe life is somewhat meaningless. What good is a right if nobody's gonna be there to make sure some evil won't take it from you?

hey move in military personnel to protect those civilians by throwing up a line of defense around them. The conflict that was taking place can still go on in any way it wants, and they will never even become target of those military units if they don't decide to try to break through that line of defense to harm the civilians.

Well, I will tell you from experience that moving in military personnel to protect civilians will not stop a determined aggressor from taking action. Moving in the military will now give the @NATION@ a shiny, new target they can focus their attacks on. For example, I led a humanitarian aide mission to a nation that was devastated by an attack from a rebel faction and during the peacekeeping process; I get waxed as well during a new attack. So what happens then if this is a United Nations sanctioned effort? Do they retaliate and send more men and materiel? What happens when they decide to attack again and it becomes a guerilla offensive on the attackers side?

There are large enough nations out there that would have a field day if they decided to start a coalition of rogue nations to fight a United Nations peacekeeping effort. It would effectively be a slaughterhouse. I can cite a few examples where a noble peacekeeping effort has been met with strong opposition.

Although there are noble intentions behind this proposition, I do not think it stands a chance because it would impact the game adversely. I can just imagine the ensuing chaos of a peacekeeping mission gone awry.

This might be the wrong place to ask this, but this topic also interests me a lot outside this game, do you perhaps have an MSN or AIM account on which I could contact you? I'd really want to learn from your experience if I may.

and well, I can't argue with what you said, and I must agree that since the original ideas, the modifications made to fit with this game have kind of destroyed the whole point :) thereby I now give up :)

Civilians are threatened, UN delegates decide to act

There is no mechanism for this in the game. It would require changing game mechanics, thus it's a violation.

and protect them before a genocide or something takes place, they move in military personnel

That is the UN effectively using an army. Also a violation.

protect those civilians by throwing up a line of defense around them. The conflict that was taking place can still go on in any way it wants, and they will never even become target of those military units if they don't decide to try to break through that line of defense to harm the civilians.

Just to step away from legality/illegality... that's a rather silly idea. The UN nicks soldiers from various militaries to for a living wall?

And the Right to a safe live may exist, but the right to protect a threatened life isn't, and without that right, the right to a safe life is somewhat meaningless. What good is a right if nobody's gonna be there to make sure some evil won't take it from you?

The point is, a Resolution that increases Civil Rights does so the instant it passes, not some nebulous time in the future. Also this Proposal would require troops to go to some other nation. That offers no help to the nation sending the troops. Selective benefits.

I could show you why those remarks don't go for what I had in mind with this proposal, but I have to notice that too much has changed since the beginning so I d'ont think it has any value anymore, and I'm sorry for the argument, I was just a bit convinced of my own knowledge of whatever.

It's a done deal now, I'm not gonna be making a proposal about it.

do you perhaps have an MSN or AIM account on which I could contact you? I'd really want to learn from your experience if I may.


It is listed on my profile. Plenty of free time at work in between monkeying around with databases, I do not mind sharing.

I cannot support this resolution because I do believe that it inteferes with game mechanics.

Especially, the first bit, S1, where it says about gaining approval of 1% of UN delegates. Surely, this is suggesting that a new feature be added to the UN.

Just to step away from legality/illegality... that's a rather silly idea. The UN nicks soldiers from various militaries to for a living wall?
Also this Proposal would require troops to go to some other nation. That offers no help to the nation sending the troops.

Well, along those lines.. 'what if' no one really wants to send troops? If I do not have a large standing military, why should I commit troops and leave my borders vulnerable to attack? What will this cost my nation in terms of financial, materiel and manpower? I may not have the funds in my coffers to pay for such an endeavour? Not to mention who would be the ultimate commander and decide the fate of my forces?