NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISING, that not all UN member nations agree on the best political system.

DEEPLY DISTURBED, by an increased hostility towards any non-democratic political systems.

REALISING, that very few true democracies exist, and that democracies are not necessarily the most expedient, effective or beneficial systems of government.

ENDORSES, all member nations to be of whatever political system they so choose.

PROCLAIMS, that no nation shall be judged legally by their political leaning, but rather by the actions of their government legally, and in relation to their populace, or the populaces of other nations.
I've noted an increased hostility in more recent UN proposals, towards political systems, which in real-life are equated with being vassals of "terror organisations". A dictatorship is not necessarily any worse than a democracy (the Athenians proved that quite well), and many nations that proclaim their democratic ideologies, are in fact, not democracies at all (ie, America).

For this reason, I'm putting foward this proposal - to stop judgemental proposals that include political leanings as a reason to prosecute, but rather, specifying that the UN will only prosecute a nation according to the actions it takes towards its people, and the people of other nations.

I've noted an increased hostility in more recent UN proposals, towards political systems, which in real-life are equated with being vassals of "terror organisations". A dictatorship is not necessarily any worse than a democracy (the Athenians proved that quite well), and many nations that proclaim their democratic ideologies, are in fact, not democracies at all (ie, America).

For this reason, I'm putting foward this proposal - to stop judgemental proposals that include political leanings as a reason to prosecute, but rather, specifying that the UN will only prosecute a nation according to the actions it takes towards its people, and the people of other nations.

Can you given an example of a proposal/resolution that falls under your description? (Preferably one that isn't illegal or insane, but I will leave that judgement up to you!)

How would this be enforced?

Everyone is always going to be judged in some way for their political leanings, and you can't really regulate that without mind control or thought police. Sorry.

Can you given an example of a proposal/resolution that falls under your description? (Preferably one that isn't illegal or insane, but I will leave that judgement up to you!)

And before anyone lists the "humanitarian intervention" proposal, it is not the case, as it clearly states that if the people are happy with the situation then there are no grounds for intervention. Only if the people are being oppressed and denied of their basic human rights to an extreme degree (genocide) by a therefore illegitimate government, and the people want help in overthrowing said government...

(pre-emptive strike...)

But don't argue the case here, argue it in the HI thread.

Nice topic shift.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Nice topic shift.


I wasn't meaning to, but I knew proposals like this were going to arise in retaliation to mine. Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029593&postcount=9

Doesn't that make this proposal illegal?

I wasn't meaning to, but I knew proposals like this were going to arise in retaliation to mine. Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.

With all due respect to the ambassador from Gwenstefani, and realizing that the ambassador from Krioval has been present at this body for only a short time, I find that questions of national sovereignty versus international law predominate on this board, and I have personally seen no fewer than twelve resolutions specifically designed either to promote the concept of national sovereignty or to repeal other resolutions that they feel improperly restricts it. In short, it's not all about any one nation or any one resolution. Further, the argument tends to be phrased inadequately to pique my interest, and I have come to tune out nearly all arguments that rely exclusively or nearly exclusively on basis of national sovereignty.

Can you given an example of a proposal/resolution that falls under your description? (Preferably one that isn't illegal or insane, but I will leave that judgement up to you!)
I'll try and find one for you, but I just woke up, and I'm meant to be at someone's house a few hours ago.

How would this be enforced?
That's the thing - it doesn't do anything other than state a government's rights. Basically, it works the same way as the UBR did, and create boundaries that laws should not cross.

Everyone is always going to be judged in some way for their political leanings, and you can't really regulate that without mind control or thought police. Sorry.
Legally judged, not mentally judged. It means that nobody can bring another nation before an international court for using one type of political system or another.

And before anyone lists the "humanitarian intervention" proposal, it is not the case, as it clearly states that if the people are happy with the situation then there are no grounds for intervention. Only if the people are being oppressed and denied of their basic human rights to an extreme degree (genocide) by a therefore illegitimate government, and the people want help in overthrowing said government...

(pre-emptive strike...)

But don't argue the case here, argue it in the HI thread.
No, I know that yours is fine. ;) You did spark this one off, but while people have their bill of rights, governments have yet to have their own rights established.

Doesn't that make this proposal illegal?
How? This act merely means that no government can be brought to court over the way they run their country, unless it interferes with the people in some illegal way. Note that last part - interferes with the people in some illegal way.
Because the people are granted the right to have some activity in the government system, that's a line that a government can't cross (and therefore, they could be brought to court on it). However, "Citizen Rule Required" never said that you couldn't have a dictatorship, just so long as you had citizens getting their opinions in.

All my act does is say "you can't bring a government to court for being a [--insert political leaning here--]"

No, I know that yours is fine. ;) You did spark this one off, but while people have their bill of rights, governments have yet to have their own rights established.
What about 'Rights and Duties'? Doesn't that cover things just like this?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029593&postcount=9

Doesn't that make this proposal illegal?

Nope. The citizens of DLE used it to decide to maintain the nation's status as a dictatorship and give all power to Enigma indefinitely. Despite the fact he was trying to step down from power.

Keep in mind that "Local" can be defined as "in your own head" if someone wants to be evil enough.

Nope. The citizens of DLE used it to decide to maintain the nation's status as a dictatorship and give all power to Enigma indefinitely. Despite the fact he was trying to step down from power.

Keep in mind that "Local" can be defined as "in your own head" if someone wants to be evil enough.
yep. that's pretty evil, alright.

What about 'Rights and Duties'? Doesn't that cover things just like this?
Not really. "PROCLAIMS, that no nation shall be judged legally by their political leaning ..." adds a twist I didn't include in R&D. I don't really understand what the author means, but I never included anything about it.

Besides, who has jurisdiction to 'judge legally'? Legal by whose laws?

yep. that's pretty evil, alright.

Nah. "Pretty evil" is "moving your left eyeball while being beaten unconcious by a polar bear in a snowstorm."

Edit:

I'd post "heinously evil," but that would violate 6 mod rulings and 4 of the basic rules, flamebait three entire continents, get me arrested and questioned for days by the Secret Service, and possibly result in my citizenship in the US revoked and my being deported to serve a life-sentence for my comments in my home nation.

And that's if I clean it up a bit first.

I've noted an increased hostility in more recent UN proposals, towards political systems, which in real-life are equated with being vassals of "terror organisations". A dictatorship is not necessarily any worse than a democracy (the Athenians proved that quite well), and many nations that proclaim their democratic ideologies, are in fact, not democracies at all (ie, America).

For this reason, I'm putting foward this proposal - to stop judgemental proposals that include political leanings as a reason to prosecute, but rather, specifying that the UN will only prosecute a nation according to the actions it takes towards its people, and the people of other nations.


I think that so long as the "Citizen Rule Required" resolution exists, any resolution of the sort you are suggesting would be seen as conflicting. I do agree with the point your making :) , especially since being a democracy is not a requirement to join the UN, but I have a feeling that "Citizen Rule Required" would need to be repealed first.

Nah. "Pretty evil" is "moving your left eyeball while being beaten unconcious by a polar bear in a snowstorm."

Edit:

I'd post "heinously evil," but that would violate 6 mod rulings and 4 of the basic rules, flamebait three entire continents, get me arrested and questioned for days by the Secret Service, and possibly result in my citizenship in the US revoked and my being deported to serve a life-sentence for my comments in my home nation.

And that's if I clean it up a bit first.

well, the humanitarian intervention resolution looks like it's going to pass.

i'm afraid your vampires will make you a prime target.



my point, i guess, being: don't bother holding anything back.

Besides, who has jurisdiction to 'judge legally'? Legal by whose laws?
Technically a government is only ever subject to the laws it creates itself, and international law. So "judged legally" means international law.

I think that so long as the "Citizen Rule Required" resolution exists, any resolution of the sort you are suggesting would be seen as conflicting. I do agree with the point your making , especially since being a democracy is not a requirement to join the UN, but I have a feeling that "Citizen Rule Required" would need to be repealed first.
I can understand your point, but CRR is only a problem if the people aren't allowed to have any say at all. A dictatorship has no problems under the CRR act, as long as his citizens are allowed to talk to him. ;)

TilEnca, I'll get back to you on your question tomorrow, I'm at a sleepover-LAN at the moment.

Windleheim, on another note, dictators would have had some problems with the UN anyway, given the CRR act. Assuming that all UN-member nations adhere to the resolutions, then the CRR is a non-issue.

Ok TilEnca, sorry for the wait.

Firstly, I should point out that the Political Systems Act doesn't just refer to the democracy/autocracy divide, but also the left-right divide, and any other strange offshoots as well (Insequa for instance, is technically a "Liberal Socialist Technocratic Representative Democracy" - if someone wanted to set the UN against leftists, if there happened to be an excess of right-wingers on one day, they could pass it, and I'd be stuffed, likewise, if technocracies were deemed bad by the UN, I'd be stuffed... and so on).
However, we're lucky that there haven't been many so far.

First example, is resolution #1 - "Fight the Axis of Evil". Obviously, this one's since been rescinded, but it's a good case in point.

Second example is the Citizen-Rule Required act we've been talking about. Technically it's not necessary, so long as a dictator adheres to the Universal Bill of Rights, but obviously it's an attempt to enforce democracy. However, given that the CRR has already been implemented, the Pol-Sys act would just bend around it.

If we want to go through proposals however, we find it a little bit more scary. They're easy to find - you need only to look at the first page to see:
"Separation of Church and State"
Which to some is a good idea, and others, not a good idea. Definitely infringes on a government's right to its own system.

Next:
"Nationalisation of Industry"
A socialist issue - many capitalists won't like this one, and again, that's someone trying to redesign everyone else's governments.

"Ban moral relativism"
A philosophical leaning, that some governments (like my own) use as a way of dealing with criminals.

"No more armed police"
Do I even need to comment?

And there are new ones every day. I might restructure my proposal a little, and try reposting it.

Since this doesn't actually do anything, I'm assuming its strength is "Mild", yes?

Glorious Hack, this document, in whatever form it eventually goes through as, is effectively the same towards UN member nations as the Universal Bill of Rights is to humans generally. As such, I'd say it's a "strong" act, not "mild"... it has an effect on what can and can't be passed in the UN, after all.

OK, just a rewrite of the document - perhaps something like this then?

The Government Freedoms Act:

So far, other than UN resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) is the only document which delineates any rights accorded to the governments of UN states. We find this to be a deplorable situation, as in such a diverse society as NationStates, the rights of governments must be protected as much as the rights of humans generally.

Therefore, this document will state the rights the UN shall accord to all member nations.

Article 1 ~ All member nations have the right to follow and advocate whichever political philosophy they wish, so long as this does not conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights.

Article 2 ~ All member nations have the right to express their views in full and without interference.

Article 3 ~ All member nations have the right to be treated equally under international law.

Article 4 ~ Any nations who violate, or attempt to violate, these articles shall be held accountable under international law.

Article 5 ~ This document is not to be considered exhaustive, and will not limit any future acts in according UN member states governmental rights.

Glorious Hack, this document, in whatever form it eventually goes through as, is effectively the same towards UN member nations as the Universal Bill of Rights is to humans generally. As such, I'd say it's a "strong" act, not "mild"... it has an effect on what can and can't be passed in the UN, after all.

OK, just a rewrite of the document - perhaps something like this then?

The Government Freedoms Act:

So far, other than UN resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) is the only document which delineates any rights accorded to the governments of UN states. We find this to be a deplorable situation, as in such a diverse society as NationStates, the rights of governments must be protected as much as the rights of humans generally.

Therefore, this document will state the rights the UN shall accord to all member nations.

Article 1 ~ All member nations have the right to follow and advocate whichever political philosophy they wish, so long as this does not conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights.

Article 2 ~ All member nations have the right to express their views in full and without interference.

Article 3 ~ All member nations have the right to be treated equally under international law.

Article 4 ~ Any nations who violate, or attempt to violate, these articles shall be held accountable under international law.

Article 5 ~ This document is not to be considered exhaustive, and will not limit any future acts in according UN member states governmental rights.

As rewritten, it doesn't do anything not already covered in previous resolutions.

Ok TilEnca, sorry for the wait.


Don't worry about it :}


However, we're lucky that there haven't been many so far.


There is a reason for that - generally they don't get to the Floor, let alone get passed, because of what they are.


First example, is resolution #1 - "Fight the Axis of Evil". Obviously, this one's since been rescinded, but it's a good case in point.


Also a test balloon :}


Second example is the Citizen-Rule Required act we've been talking about. Technically it's not necessary, so long as a dictator adheres to the Universal Bill of Rights, but obviously it's an attempt to enforce democracy. However, given that the CRR has already been implemented, the Pol-Sys act would just bend around it.


Yeah. But it is easy to get around and ignore. All you have to do is let citizens elect library monitors and you are in line with the resolution.


If we want to go through proposals however, we find it a little bit more scary. They're easy to find - you need only to look at the first page to see:
"Separation of Church and State"
Which to some is a good idea, and others, not a good idea. Definitely infringes on a government's right to its own system.

Next:
"Nationalisation of Industry"
A socialist issue - many capitalists won't like this one, and again, that's someone trying to redesign everyone else's governments.

"Ban moral relativism"
A philosophical leaning, that some governments (like my own) use as a way of dealing with criminals.

"No more armed police"
Do I even need to comment?

And there are new ones every day. I might restructure my proposal a little, and try reposting it.

None of these are going to pass.

But with the examples you give, you bring up a problem with your own proposal - if your proposal passes, then it would limit the type of proposals that can be put forward by people. Which might be considered against the rules.

(Then again, that is always the case with any resolution I guess)

As rewritten, it doesn't do anything not already covered in previous resolutions.
Alright - how would you do it then? ;)

There is a reason for that - generally they don't get to the Floor, let alone get passed, because of what they are.
Generally, although resolution #1 and "Citizen-rule required" are proof that sometimes they do. For the most part, they're not going to, but if on any one day, a lot of people of one political leanings take a vote, then they do, and they can be passed - UN issues don't require everyone to have their say.

Yeah. But it is easy to get around and ignore. All you have to do is let citizens elect library monitors and you are in line with the resolution.
:D I know - isn't ambiguity grand?

But with the examples you give, you bring up a problem with your own proposal - if your proposal passes, then it would limit the type of proposals that can be put forward by people. Which might be considered against the rules.

(Then again, that is always the case with any resolution I guess)
Tell me, does the Eon Convention limit future proposals for genocide? ;)
All proposals limit future proposals in some way, and if they're found to be not in the people's best interests, then they're repealed.

But you've also got to ask yourself, do you really want anti-government-type proposals?

Alright - how would you do it then? ;)



We wouldn't. When we're annoyed at someone, we either steal their office furniture or go to war with them. It works.

Ahh, well this act probably has little to do with people getting annoyed at each other (although I must say, stealing their office furniture sounds like a good plan), but more to do with finding a way to protect governments from different kinds of limitations.

You'll note that when it says:
"Article 2 ~ All member nations have the right to express their views in full and without interference."
It says absolutely nothing about other nations expressing their views in full and without interference about idiotic views. ;)

Generally, although resolution #1 and "Citizen-rule required" are proof that sometimes they do.
Correction - Resolution #1 was a test resolution, to check that the resolution system worked. It was implemented before the game opened to the general public. Citizen Rule Required was put in before the Enodian proposal rules were put in place. Nowadays, it would probably be struck down as illegal.

What are the Enodian proposal rules? (Feel free to telegram me if this is not a suitable place for discussion, and if you feel like explaining it!)

Showing my age. The Enodian rules are those outlined in the Before you make a proposal... thread, named after the great mod Enodia who instituted and policed them for a great deal of time. He has since gone on to bigger and better things.

Showing my age. The Enodian rules are those outlined in the Before you make a proposal... thread, named after the great mod Enodia who instituted and policed them for a great deal of time. He has since gone on to bigger and better things.
Whoa, I thought I knew of the ex-Mods, but this is one I hadn't heard of.

Showing my age. The Enodian rules are those outlined in the Before you make a proposal... thread, named after the great mod Enodia who instituted and policed them for a great deal of time. He has since gone on to bigger and better things.
An definition that should have been corrected long ago, and has now been remedied.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1

Correction - Resolution #1 was a test resolution, to check that the resolution system worked. It was implemented before the game opened to the general public. Citizen Rule Required was put in before the Enodian proposal rules were put in place. Nowadays, it would probably be struck down as illegal.
I guessed that - otherwise it wouldn't have gone through on a 2 to 1 vote.
I don't quite see how CRR breaks the Enodian proposal rules, unless it might considered not worthy of the UN's consideration.

I guessed that - otherwise it wouldn't have gone through on a 2 to 1 vote.
I don't quite see how CRR breaks the Enodian proposal rules, unless it might considered not worthy of the UN's consideration.
Citizen Rule Required could be taken as being a requirement for UN members to be at least somewhat democratic. Yes, most dictators have used the broad language against it, but still.

The thing is, democracy isn't the only system in the UN. We have a little of everything. If the largest group (the democracies) start bossing people about into doing what they want (becoming democracies, because democracy is the only way), we have a new Athens...