NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just proposed the following:
RECOGNISES that all states have equal soveriegnty over their own territories and incorporated peoples.

RECOGNISES the inalienable right of all states to govern as they see fit in the intrests of their people.

RECOGNISES that the government of a nation is best placed to dicern those intrests, WHILST ACCEPTING that some governments do act upon those, ASSERTS that this is no bussiness of other states.

RECOGNISES that international organisations and international law has INCREASINGLY and CONSISTENTLY infringed this basic soveriegnty.

DEMANDS that this process is stopped and reversed.

REPEALS all past proposals that have been approved by the UN

BINDS all member states to the REQUIREMENT that they respect the soverignty of all other states and governments as well as the respective cultures of those states.

DEMANDS that all states cease any aggressive action against other soverign states wether they be economic, milliatary, political or cultural.


...............


I would appreciate any support that could be given to this proposal and am willing to listent to any arguments for or against it. Any criticism will be valued, ..........

REPEALS all past proposals that have been approved by the UN
This is illegal. A repeal is only allowed to target one resolution. They are not allowed to target more than one, or in this case all of them.

It's illegal.

It's so illegal it redefines the term illegal to a whole new level.

In fact we might have to make up a whole new word to describe how illegal this is.

That's why I think supporting it is a moot point - it won't make it to the floor, or even to the proposal list. The moment a mod sees it it will be gone.

Seriously - a whole new word!!

It's illegal.

It's so illegal it redefines the term illegal to a whole new level.

In fact we might have to make up a whole new word to describe how illegal this is.

That's why I think supporting it is a moot point - it won't make it to the floor, or even to the proposal list. The moment a mod sees it it will be gone.

Seriously - a whole new word!!
Not only that, but how exactly can someone make a UN proposal that does not affect national sovreignity? I have yet to see one...
So this proposal would effectively make it impossible to make more proposals.

Not only that, but how exactly can someone make a UN proposal that does not affect national sovreignity? I have yet to see one...
So thi sproposal would effectively make it impossible to make more proposals.

The Taxation Ban.

(I asked the same question, and got given that answer. And it's a correct answer, which is annoying!)

Just out of curiousity - "The King Is Master In His Own Land"?

The Taxation Ban.

(I asked the same question, and got given that answer. And it's a correct answer, which is annoying!)
:eek:
You're right!
So all the UN could really do is define what it cannot do!

Creepy self-referentiality.

My proposal is more geared towards a point than an expectation of it passing. I beleive that the tenants of the 1642 Westphalian treaty are far superior to those behind the UN. The UN simply being a way to force other states to do the bidding of powerful ones or ones whose views are widely held. Just beacuse a view is widely held doesnt mean it is right or should be enforced. The UN should exisist to prevent breaches of soverignty not impose them.
Yes the proposal is in fact illegal, but it is an attempt to redifine the international legality of the actions of the UN and it's member states. I challenge that any state has the right and/or duty to immpose its will on other states or cultures.

It is "The King is Emporer in his own Land", and is in fact the title of an article from the Treaty of Westphalia, 1642 which defined the international system as we know it.

I suppose the Westphalian treaty is all well and good, but here we run under the rules as set down by Max Barry. According to him, the UN is your chance to 'mould the rest of the world to your way of thinking' or something along those lines. All we are doing is playing the game according to the rules.

Ah, 1642. A good year for Krioval. That was toward the end of the reign of the first Kriov King, Keldar the Great. Unfortunately, we were not signatories to any treaties in that year that lasted beyond 1645, so we consider ourselves to be outside the scope of any "Westphalian treaty" other people might have signed. However, in 2005, we did enter the United Nations, and therefore became bound by the terms of its resolutions and charter.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
UN Ambassador - Krioval
Regional Delegate - Chaotica

My proposal is more geared towards a point than an expectation of it passing. I beleive that the tenants of the 1642 Westphalian treaty are far superior to those behind the UN. The UN simply being a way to force other states to do the bidding of powerful ones or ones whose views are widely held. Just beacuse a view is widely held doesnt mean it is right or should be enforced. The UN should exisist to prevent breaches of soverignty not impose them.
Yes the proposal is in fact illegal, but it is an attempt to redifine the international legality of the actions of the UN and it's member states. I challenge that any state has the right and/or duty to immpose its will on other states or cultures.

Good. You'll get a flag for an illegal proposal. Then you'll keep this up and deport yourself from the UN.

You obviously didn't read the FAQ, and don't understand that the UN exists to make hash out of "national soverignty". Its quite good with some mustard and relish.

:eek:
You're right!
So all the UN could really do is define what it cannot do!

Creepy self-referentiality.
And unless it's very carefully worded it can't even do that anymore (I think).

I once dared to dream and submitted this type or proposal, but my wings were clipped and I have learned since. This is definitely going into the no-fly zone.

I have thouroughy read the faq etc before submitting my proposal. As i said the proposal was too make a point rather than in expectation of it passing or gaining much approval. I am attempting to defend states against de facto soverignty erosion that is now a major figure of many of the proposals i see when i come to look at which to approve. They are free to make their point, but i am also free to make mine.
Much ill feeling between nations comes from breaches of soverignty and other similar acts. It breeds racism and extreme nationalism the world over. Peoples do not wish to be constrained by the whims of the ruler of a country they have never been too, will never be too, and in all likleyhood could never afford to go to.
This proposal is illegal, i do not deny this, but is deliberatley so. I question the legality and morality of any organisation that attempts to dilute soverignty and national individuality.

I have thouroughy read the faq etc before submitting my proposal. As i said the proposal was too make a point rather than in expectation of it passing or gaining much approval. I am attempting to defend states against de facto soverignty erosion that is now a major figure of many of the proposals i see when i come to look at which to approve. They are free to make their point, but i am also free to make mine.
Much ill feeling between nations comes from breaches of soverignty and other similar acts. It breeds racism and extreme nationalism the world over. Peoples do not wish to be constrained by the whims of the ruler of a country they have never been too, will never be too, and in all likleyhood could never afford to go to.
This proposal is illegal, i do not deny this, but is deliberatley so. I question the legality and morality of any organisation that attempts to dilute soverignty and national individuality.

How does it breed racism and nationalism to have everyone on an equal footing?

And the legality is there because that's what the UN is there for, so spoke Max at the dawn of all days :}

In fact we might have to make up a whole new word to describe how illegal this is.


How's "doubleplusunlegal"?

To the Latin-titles-make-everything-better person, I'd like you to note that resolutions that say "repeal everything" are hardly original or even shocking. The point you are trying to make, therefore, has already been lost.

Peoples do not wish to be constrained by the whims of the ruler of a country they have never been too, will never be too, and in all likleyhood could never afford to go to.

"Ruler" should be pluralized. It is not "one ruler imposing his lunatic whims on the world", it is "a majority of the rulers of the UN member nations imposing their carefully considered lunatic whims on the members of the UN, membership in which, by the way, is completely optional if you really don't want to abide by one or more of the resolutions."

You obviously didn't read the FAQ, and don't understand that the UN exists to make hash out of "national soverignty". Its quite good with some mustard and relish.

+


Yes the proposal is in fact illegal

+

I have thouroughy read the faq etc before submitting my proposal... This proposal is illegal, i do not deny this, but is deliberatley so.

=


:rolleyes:




Don't worry if your welcome isn't great in the UN forum, Sancti Andrea. The forum here is quite detached from Nationstates and its goings-on. Hostility to new ideas or proposals is par for the course. You should've seen the display when I opened the thread about my repeal of "legalize prostitution". Several self-proclaimed experts started to argue me that "this will never happen", or "there's no way this proposal will get through". Vastiva called me a 'servant of ignorance' or some such. By all appearances on the forum, it had tons of opposition. Now, you can find my repeal under "past resolutions". I'm starting to wonder if the more I get boo-ed in the forum, the greater my chances of success. Like I said, the UN forum is an island not necessarilly attached or in proximity to the real NSUN. Here there are almost strictly naysayers; there, most are a wee bit more complicated.

Don't worry if your welcome isn't great in the UN forum, Sancti Andrea. The forum here is quite detached from Nationstates and its goings-on. Hostility to new ideas or proposals is par for the course. You should've seen the display when I opened the thread about my repeal of "legalize prostitution". Several self-proclaimed experts started to argue me that "this will never happen", or "there's no way this proposal will get through". Vastiva called me a 'servant of ignorance' or some such. By all appearances on the forum, it had tons of opposition. Now, you can find my repeal under "past resolutions". I'm starting to wonder if the more I get boo-ed in the forum, the greater my chances of success. Like I said, the UN forum is an island not necessarilly attached or in proximity to the real NSUN. Here there are almost strictly naysayers; there, most are a wee bit more complicated.
I hope you're not tarring us all with the same brush there PC. I sincerely hope that I have been helping people with proposal ideas, and yes, that includes informing people that the idea they have come up with is illegal.

The use of a latin title, has absolutley nothing to do with me thinking that it makes the proposal better. It is more out of deference to the importance of the original article of that name.

I hope you're not tarring us all with the same brush there PC. I sincerely hope that I have been helping people with proposal ideas, and yes, that includes informing people that the idea they have come up with is illegal.

Sorry that it came out that way, Enn. Yeah, I was mainly talking about a few--but frequent--posters who tend towards negativity and being unhelpful. And I did forgot to recognize those that do help around here. Yes, I think you're one of those that is helpful (not that I'm the final judge--or any judge--on the matter). And that's not to say that some of the posters I find being negative and unhelpful to new proposals writers do not ever help out.

I just didn't want Sancti Andrea too discouraged from writing in the future and I wanted him to realize that perceived opposition in the forum does not translate into opposition in the rest of the game. That said, of course, the proposal is illegal; any "opposition" in the game will come from the mods. I think Sancti realizes that. I hope he or she moves forward, in the future, to find less illegal ways of standing up for his point of view.

Quite right. Sorry to jump in at the end here, but I'd like to suggest that Sancti Andrea could, if they wanted their views aired, start up a discussion thread about national sovreignity, with a view to a resolution in the future. This is what happened with the re-legalise prostitution resolution, and it worked well.

This proposal is illegal, i do not deny this, but is deliberatley so. I question the legality and morality of any organisation that attempts to dilute soverignty and national individuality.

Gee, and you joined voluntarily, accepting the rules of the UN.

What does this say about you?

Don't worry if your welcome isn't great in the UN forum, Sancti Andrea. The forum here is quite detached from Nationstates and its goings-on. Hostility to new ideas or proposals is par for the course. You should've seen the display when I opened the thread about my repeal of "legalize prostitution". Several self-proclaimed experts started to argue me that "this will never happen", or "there's no way this proposal will get through". Vastiva called me a 'servant of ignorance' or some such. By all appearances on the forum, it had tons of opposition. Now, you can find my repeal under "past resolutions". I'm starting to wonder if the more I get boo-ed in the forum, the greater my chances of success. Like I said, the UN forum is an island not necessarilly attached or in proximity to the real NSUN. Here there are almost strictly naysayers; there, most are a wee bit more complicated.

:rolleyes:

PC, repeat after me: "Dramatic Rhetoric".

Now look it up.

Good!

Now if you understand those words, and you understand they were put into what was announced as a "dramatic rhetoric"...

Gee, and you joined voluntarily, accepting the rules of the UN.

What does this say about you?


Sometimes to do down an organisation one has to join and critisise from within. I mean come on criticism of UN mechanism in reality are going to be better received if they come from say China, or even albania, than from non-members such as the Trans-Dniesti Republic or Karbagh Navago. I feel the same holds true in the game, i can only make my feelings truly known by being "in the club" as it where. Anyhow, i was ejected from the UN today, apparently for multiple states which i do not have, so infact i am not a member............