NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow nations: please feel free to submit any comments you might have on these ideas.

------

RECOGNIZING that every nation's national circumstances, economies, and opportunities are differing and unique, and that the status of the economy is critical to both the personal enjoyment of a fulfilling personal life, and the very stability of government itself;

UNDERSTANDING that localized response to economic issues is preferable to any UN-wide response because local and/or regional officials best understand the challenges and opportunities unique to their nation and/or region;

RECOMMENDING FURTHERMORE, that, because the United Nations is an inclusive organization that seeks to enchance its membership, the United Nations should not alienate any particular member state or potential member state by threatening any such state's economic stability through the implementation of any uniform rule of trade policy;

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVING that each member state shall have the right and freedom to negotiate trade agreements and treaties with other nations, alliances, organizations and regions in the manner deemed most fit to take into account the individualized and particular economic circumstances facing that member state.

-----

From recent discussions in other threads, I suspect that there are a number of nations who support these principles, and I am more than amenable to changes in the wording.

I eagerly await your response(s)!

I like it. Though I feel this resolution should be made into an act, I also realize that this would be illegal. So I suppose it can't=(

I like it. Though I feel this resolution should be made into an act, I also realize that this would be illegal. So I suppose it can't=(

Well I think that the legality of the act is a debateable point. Why, in your opinion, would the act be illegal? Even if it is illegal, this is a thread where people can discuss the merits of localized trade policy, and it serves as a protest of any attempt to force a uniform, inflexible trade policy on all nations that threatens to cast many nations into a state of economic crisis.

Well I think that the legality of the act is a debateable point. Why, in your opinion, would the act be illegal? Even if it is illegal, this is a thread where people can discuss the merits of localized trade policy, and it serves as a protest of any attempt to force a uniform, inflexible trade policy on all nations that threatens to cast many nations into a state of economic crisis.

Because you are passing a resolution limiting the future powers of the UN. Which is forbidden under game rules (or was when I last checked)

Because you are passing a resolution limiting the future powers of the UN. Which is forbidden under game rules (or was when I last checked)

All the resolution does is grant a member state a certain legal right, which right can be amended, altered or rescinded upon further action by the UN. In this sense, the UN's future powers would not be limited at all.

The only thing the resolution does is recommend that the UN adopt certain policies in the future, but the actual resolution clauses (which are the only ones with active, legal effect) do not effectively bind the power of the UN to act in the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVING that, because the United Nations is an inclusive organization that seeks to enchance its membership, the United Nations should not alienate any particular member state or potential member state by threatening any such state's economic stability through the implementation of any uniform rule of trade policy;


This would indicate that the proposal is saying that the UN, from now on, shall not pass any uniform rule of trade policy.

How is that anything other than limiting the future power of the UN?

Fellow nations: please feel free to submit any comments you might have on these ideas.

------

RECOGNIZING that every nation's national circumstances, economies, and opportunities are differing and unique, and that the status of the economy is critical to both the personal enjoyment of a fulfilling personal life, and the very stability of government itself;

UNDERSTANDING that localized response to economic issues is preferable to any UN-wide response because local and/or regional officials best understand the challenges and opportunities unique to their nation and/or region;

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVING that, because the United Nations is an inclusive organization that seeks to enchance its membership, the United Nations should not alienate any particular member state or potential member state by threatening any such state's economic stability through the implementation of any uniform rule of trade policy;

AND, FURTHERMORE, RESOLVING that each member state shall have the right and freedom to negotiate with other nations, alliances, organizations and regions in the manner deemed most fit to take into account the individualized and particular circumstances facing that member state.

-----

From recent discussions in other threads, I suspect that there are a number of nations who support these principles, and I am more than amenable to changes in the wording.

I eagerly await your response(s)!
Where's the rest of the proposal?

I got through the preamble, and then there was no meat.

This would indicate that the proposal is saying that the UN, from now on, shall not pass any uniform rule of trade policy.

How is that anything other than limiting the future power of the UN?

Eek! I meant that to be an "recommending" clause.

I only want the following clause to be a "therefore, resolving" clause.

Thank you for catching this typo. I have edited fixed the error.

Eek! I meant that to be an "recommending" clause.

I only want the following clause to be a "therefore, resolving" clause.

Thank you for catching this typo. I have edited fixed the error.

(smirk) Then my work here is done.

If it is only recommending then I can't see it being inviolation of game rules (but, as I tend to point out a lot, I am not a moderator and don't know all the rules, so please don't take my word for it!)

Where's the rest of the proposal?

I got through the preamble, and then there was no meat.

I see your point, this draft is rather short. But I must say that I would be satisfied to see legislation that states that member states are entitled to choose whichever trade policies best suit their needs. What more needs to be said? For I am happy to edit this wording. In my view (subject to discussion from the members here), the following is all that need be said:

...each member state shall have the right and freedom to negotiate trade agreements and treaties with other nations, alliances, organizations and regions in the manner deemed most fit to take into account the individualized and particular economic circumstances facing that member state.

I just mean that now it's a resolution. Resolutions, in short, are dictated opinions of the body that passes them. If this were an act, it would be made law, and I think all the anti-copyright laws and regulated commerce acts that have been passed would contradict it.

Oh. Wait a minute. Is this a bill or a resolution?

Oh. Wait a minute. Is this a bill or a resolution?

It is my understanding that it would be a law if enacted (more specifically, all that is contained within the "resolution" clause).

As regards other potentially conflicting existing proposals, I can handily write exceptions into the operative legal language to rid us of this problem. For instance, I can make an exception for the current resolution imposing a ban on embargoes on medicine.

I would be very interested to see what a moderator makes of the legality of this proposal. It's a nice statement of values and intent and I believe my nation would support its passage.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

It's illegal, so ho ho ho.

Nice to see that my draft proposal was so thought provoking for you though, CA.

Whatever next, a proposal restricting the right of the UN to make resolutions? A proposal that states that UN resolutions not be binding on UN member states?

I would be very interested to see what a moderator makes of the legality of this proposal. It's a nice statement of values and intent and I believe my nation would support its passage.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I would also support its passage.

Good job, Cascadia Atlanticus.

Yes, this would be a lot better than the 'one size fits all' approach of Adamsgrad's proposal. I'd still like to see some regulation of international trade though, (with the intention of evening out the scales).
Watch this space

Whatever next, a proposal restricting the right of the UN to make resolutions? A proposal that states that UN resolutions not be binding on UN member states?

You sir are a visionary. ;)

To Cascadia, well done again...

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVING that each member state shall have the right and freedom to negotiate trade agreements and treaties with other nations, alliances, organizations and regions in the manner deemed most fit to take into account the individualized and particular economic circumstances facing that member state.

I think this does not break rules (as it seems people are agreeing) because the UN is not given the right to deal with non-UN activities (ie type of alliances UN members are apart of, size or part of regions, government type)...Also, it is simply like the resolution regarding freedom of choice and others stating it is the right UN members to choose.

So, does this make it illegal for regions to put restrictions on with whom their member nationstates can trade?
Wow, that's pretty bad sentence construction.

Wait, I'll come in again.

Are regions now allowed to form trading blocs? That is, can they agree on preferential trade terms with other regions that their member nationstates are forced to abide?

I would have thought this to be the case, but this resolution seems to truncate that ability. Maybe it's just the wording, but it seems to say regions can't put any trade restrictions on their member nationstates.

Unnecessary, if that was the intent - a nationstate that feels oppressed by its region is always free to leave and find another.

Are regions now allowed to form trading blocs? That is, can they agree on preferential trade terms with other regions that their member nationstates are forced to abide?

I would have thought this to be the case, but this resolution seems to truncate that ability. Maybe it's just the wording, but it seems to say regions can't put any trade restrictions on their member nationstates.

Unnecessary, if that was the intent - a nationstate that feels oppressed by its region is always free to leave and find another.

Sure, member states are allowed to negotiate whatsover agreements they wish under this language! Once they have negotiated a contract with other nations/regions/alliances/organiztions, that treaty becomes binding as does any other international law. The language of this proposal only protects the right of a member to negotiate with other nations/regions/alliances/organizations.

In a sense, membership in a region is somewhat of a "treaty," in the sense that the member state is bound by whatever law governs the region. This proposal's langauge, as currently written, preserves the right of a member state to negotiate even the terms of regional affiliation, I would say.

If you remain uncertain about the wording, I will be happy to amend it to your liking. What would you suggest? For ease of reference, I quote the current wording of the "resolved" clause below:

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVING that each member state shall have the right and freedom to negotiate trade agreements and treaties with other nations, alliances, organizations and regions in the manner deemed most fit to take into account the individualized and particular economic circumstances facing that member state.

So... since this is pretty much only a recommending resolution, would any resolutions in the future standardizing trade be found in violation of this? Just curious.

So... since this is pretty much only a recommending resolution, would any resolutions in the future standardizing trade be found in violation of this? Just curious.

Most of the resolution is hortatory, except the final clause, which would grant member states the right and freedom to negotiate trade agreements.

Sovereign nations, by definition, already have the right to govern their own economies. So whats the point of this resolution?

Sovereign nations, by definition, already have the right to govern their own economies. So whats the point of this resolution?

It would serve as further precedent of the recognition of national sovereignty in international law. That's why I like it.

Sovereign nations, by definition, already have the right to govern their own economies. So whats the point of this resolution?

Because this is meant to be a deterrent against international trade regulation legislation (wow that's a mouthful).

Let's get down to it, the resolution merely recommends, it's harmless, it has no teeth, and should be failed because of that.

there are to options for that resolution: or it will limit future resolution because of the freedom of trade (which way it is illegal), or it will not effect future resolutions and the present situation will not change (which way it has no power, it is only rethoric, and it is also illegal).
so I repeat the questionof Santa barbara: what are you trying to get by this illegal proposal?

Let's get down to it, the resolution merely recommends, it's harmless, it has no teeth, and should be failed because of that.

You must have no idea how much pleasure Casacadians take from the realization that the nation of Adamsgrad has been forced to reduce its argumentation to the technicality of the legality of this proposal, it being fair to say that you were in the very significant minority in the trade policy debate on the merits in other threads.

there are to options for that resolution: or it will limit future resolution because of the freedom of trade (which way it is illegal)?

I do not agree that if the resolution officially codifies the existing established internatinoal law principle that nations are free to trade with whomever they please under such terms as they may negotiate that this will render the proposal illegal.

I am of the opinion that such an effect restricts the powers of the UN no more than any other enacted resolution; in the sense that, once any resolution is enacted, the UN is "restricted" from passing another resolution on that matter until they have repealed the conflicting resolution.

Nowhere does this proposal say that the UN shall not have the power to repeal this resolution. It, as with all resolutions, are subject to repeal and subject to reinstatement. It does not limit the UN's power, and, therefore, is not illegal, in my opinion.

I would note that this opinion is consistent with some other, more experienced nations' opinions.

I do not agree that if the resolution officially codifies the existing established internatinoal law principle that nations are free to trade with whomever they please under such terms as they may negotiate that this will render the proposal illegal.

I am of the opinion that such an effect restricts the powers of the UN no more than any other enacted resolution; in the sense that, once any resolution is enacted, the UN is "restricted" from passing another resolution on that matter until they have repealed the conflicting resolution.

Nowhere does this proposal say that the UN shall not have the power to repeal this resolution. It, as with all resolutions, are subject to repeal and subject to reinstatement. It does not limit the UN's power, and, therefore, is not illegal, in my opinion.

I would note that this opinion is consistent with some other, more experienced nations' opinions.
you are limiting the UN when you say hae wouldn't make proposals about the subject. your proposal doesn't do anything with the countries or the citizens rights and duties. you are only limit the power of the UN member's proposal and therefore limit the UN.

It would serve as further precedent of the recognition of national sovereignty in international law. That's why I like it.

I guess I just figured national sovereignty is really defined by power and influence. A nation with no power or influence will not have much sovereignty, regardless of what UN laws declare. Maybe some sort of "rights of nations" legislature that actually has THAT in mind... instead of this resolution, which we already know only exists because the author was opposed to the concept of free trade.

I guess I just figured national sovereignty is really defined by power and influence. A nation with no power or influence will not have much sovereignty, regardless of what UN laws declare. Maybe some sort of "rights of nations" legislature that actually has THAT in mind... instead of this resolution, which we already know only exists because the author was opposed to the concept of free trade.

I am interested in results, not intentions. I'll give an example.

Let's say I'm rich and I want to help some poor people. I give poor kid A a luxurious car to drive to school and work. Poor kid B shoots poor kid A and steals the car. Essentially, in giving poor kid A the luxurious car, I screwed him over because I put him in a position where he was likely to become a target, despite my good intentions.

Although this nation is still officially operating under a formal policy of ignoring the nation of Santa Barbara until it apologizes for suggesting that the government of this nation is of the same ilk as some of the most notorious dictators in history, we would like to point out, generally (and not in response to Santa Barbara's recent comment), that it was not just this nation, but a fair number of other nations, as well. 'Twas this that prompted me to propose the draft we are now discussing.

You must have no idea how much pleasure Casacadians take from the realization that the nation of Adamsgrad has been forced to reduce its argumentation to the technicality of the legality of this proposal, it being fair to say that you were in the very significant minority in the trade policy debate on the merits in other threads.

It follows from logic Cascadia Atlanticus, that you must first address the technacality of legality with any proposal before you begin to tackle whether or not what it wants is right or not. Seems like the majority here support that view.

This doesn't even get over the first hurdle.

The last line within the above quote doesn't make sense by the way.

Let's say I'm rich and I want to help some poor people. I give poor kid A a luxurious car to drive to school and work. Poor kid B shoots poor kid A and steals the car. Essentially, in giving poor kid A the luxurious car, I screwed him over because I put him in a position where he was likely to become a target, despite my good intentions.

First, I'd offer the following criticisms for you people.

1 - Generally you should have given him something more practical... ;)

2 - Poor kid A was foolish to drive a luxurious car around in da ghetto with no way of protecting it. And to take gifts from creepy strangers like you actually!

But the truth is, Im not sure how your argument relates to this particular resolution, other than intentions vs results.... foolish poor kids aside I agree that results are good.

But what results will this proposal really provide, other than a passive endorsement by the UN of every single economic relationship within its members. Poor Kid A has eighteen apples, and Poor Kid B is on the brink of death AND has money to pay but Poor Kid A's big brother believes that selling him an apple will harm his net worth and its not good to incourage capitalism by indulging in unrestrained trade between Poor Kids?

With this UN resolution, the UN will never be able to say with any real authority "hey you can't do that." Oil embargo puts a country out of power? "My economy is my own to do with as I please, buahaha!" UN has no ability to carry out its prescribed social roles, not without fighting the effects of this proposal.

Elementary economics: price increases with demand. So if a country very much wants oil (high demand), they shouldn't be surprised when that drives up the price of oil at the bargaining table (high price).

Funny how free trade supporters who champion the rights of free agents want to regulate the bargaining process central to economic growth.

If my nation was not ignoring another particular nation because of their recent outlandish remarks impugning the integrity of my people's goverment and likening them to notorious dictatorships when we are really a peaceloving people with the best interests of all the citizenry at heart, I would be inclined to point out to such nation that their position is rather inconsistent (and not just because they are so very much concerned with this UN proposal, even though they are not even members of the UN, as they have admitted elsewhere).

It follows from logic Cascadia Atlanticus, that you must first address the technacality of legality with any proposal before you begin to tackle whether or not what it wants is right or not. Seems like the majority here support that view.

This doesn't even get over the first hurdle.

The last line within the above quote doesn't make sense by the way.

That the proposal is not technically legal is your particular position (although I would remind you that the issue is debateable). I would further point out that neither you nor I are moderators. Therefore, you should take care that you do not usurp the authority of a moderator by stating that the draft language is illegal, as I'm sure nobody here wants to be accused of impersonating a moderator (who, as I understand it, are the only persons entitled to rule on the ultimate issue of a proposal's legality).

I trust you understood that sentence.

Although I had hoped a moderator might have commented, I understand that they are quite busy with other matters; therefore, I shall actively seek a moderator's opinion on this draft language forthwith.

Kindly reserve your judgment about whether or not the draft language meets the "first hurdle," as you put it, untill that time.

But the truth is, Im not sure how your argument relates to this particular resolution, other than intentions vs results.... foolish poor kids aside I agree that results are good.

That was kinda the point.

UN has no ability to carry out its prescribed social roles, not without fighting the effects of this proposal.

The UN has prescribed social roles? What are they, and where were they mentioned in the FAQ?

That was kinda the point.


Yeah, but pretty much anyone can agree that results are better than theorizing.

The point was what results will come from this resolution?


The UN has prescribed social roles? What are they, and where were they mentioned in the FAQ?

Pretty much all of it's resolutions presuppose a social agenda for the UN, theoretically a positive one. Then again I don't know, I'm not in the UN anymore and so am free from all of it's ridiculous resolutions.

Funny how free trade supporters who champion the rights of free agents want to regulate the bargaining process central to economic growth.

Funny how some seem to think "freedom to 'govern' one's economy" is the same as "economic freedom." I do not see a government as a legitimate authority which has any rights to oppress its people - say, through oppressive economic policies. This proposal endorses that right.

Luckily, certain nations do not listen to certain others so these comments will not generate any contention from them.

The only communication the Government of Cascadia Atlanticus will recognize from the government of Santa Barbara is an official apology for likening the government of Cascadia Atlanticus to some murderous, oppressive dictatorial regime.

Yeah, but pretty much anyone can agree that results are better than theorizing.

The point was what results will come from this resolution?




Pretty much all of it's resolutions presuppose a social agenda for the UN, theoretically a positive one. Then again I don't know, I'm not in the UN anymore and so am free from all of it's ridiculous resolutions.



Funny how some seem to think "freedom to 'govern' one's economy" is the same as "economic freedom." I do not see a government as a legitimate authority which has any rights to oppress its people - say, through oppressive economic policies. This proposal endorses that right.

Luckily, certain nations do not listen to certain others so these comments will not generate any contention from them.
explain to us why you're posting in the forum?

Pretty much all of it's resolutions presuppose a social agenda for the UN, theoretically a positive one.

Well those are resolutions. There is no prescribed social agenda for the UN, and no Charter. We pretty much just do whatever we can get the majority to pass.

The only communication the Government of Cascadia Atlanticus will recognize from the government of Santa Barbara is an official apology for likening the government of Cascadia Atlanticus to some murderous, oppressive dictatorial regime.
stop responding to her posts then, you murderous oppressive dictatorial regime.

stop responding to her posts then, you murderous oppressive dictatorial regime.

Now, this we take to be a joke. :) We count the government of Asshelmetta as a friend, and do not believe they would seriously make such an unfounded allegation.

explain to us why you're posting in the forum?

1. Because I can.
2. Because I want to.
3. Because UN nations, in a global economy, do have an impact which must be considered, even if I am not currently in the UN.
4. Do I need to go on?

stop responding to her posts then.

I'm a guy. Or I'm a nation with no single gender,if you wanna look at it IC.

Well those are resolutions. There is no prescribed social agenda for the UN, and no Charter. We pretty much just do whatever we can get the majority to pass.

Prescribed then, but not in a Charter. Merely in the oppressive so-called liberal policies of the majority of UN member nations. And in the resolutions they pass.

That said, this resolution is from my perspective comparitively harmless compared to many of 'em. Much like Cascadia Atlanticus. But even a thief can look good compared to a murderer....

I'm a guy. Or I'm a nation with no single gender,if you wanna look at it IC.


Never met a guy named Barbara before, is all.

Uh, your parents really wanted a girl?

Prescribed then, but not in a Charter. Merely in the oppressive so-called liberal policies of the majority of UN member nations. And in the resolutions they pass.

I agree with you there.

Never met a guy named Barbara before, is all.

Uh, your parents really wanted a girl?

Never met anyone named Asshelmetta before either, male or female. I guess thats because we're using NationStates names and not Christian Names eh?

Slightly off topic here?

What I don't understand is how 'national sovreignity' can be used to talk about international trade. Unless it is considered a national issue about how to negotiate trade deals at the expense of others? Then surely it is also a national issue about how to avoid getting a bad deal on trade. If this is the case, then the UN cannot do anything without coming up against national sovreignity, and we should all resign.

My apologies if the above doesn't make much sense, as I'm not exactly awake.