NationStates Jolt Archive

Synopsis: All citizens can join whatever group they want and shouldn't be forced to be part of anything.

Thesis: All citizens should be treated equally no matter what political circumstances or political or economic power. Therefore they MUST be given the oppurtunity to join whatever region or alliance they wish. They MUST NOT be forced to join any entity unwillingly.

Remedy: Should any citizen, region or alliance attempt to prevent this right from being exercised, then this aforementioned entity MUST, depending on the circumstances, be expelled from the UN or have diplomatic or trade sanctions put on them if necessary.

***

Would anyone back this?

No.

Synopsis: All citizens can join whatever group they want and shouldn't be forced to be part of anything.

Thesis: All citizens should be treated equally no matter what political circumstances or political or economic power. Therefore they MUST be given the oppurtunity to join whatever region or alliance they wish. They MUST NOT be forced to join any entity unwillingly.

Remedy: Should any citizen, region or alliance attempt to prevent this right from being exercised, then this aforementioned entity MUST, depending on the circumstances, be expelled from the UN or have diplomatic or trade sanctions put on them if necessary.

***

Would anyone back this?

Wouldn't this make it impossible to arrest people for treason?

Thesis: All citizens should be treated equally no matter what political circumstances or political or economic power. Therefore they MUST be given the oppurtunity to join whatever region or alliance they wish. They MUST NOT be forced to join any entity unwillingly.


A citizen CANNOT choose whatever region they wish. That would require the abolition of immigration laws, ultimately bringing global chaos. A person may want to live in a certain region or nation, but that nation has no obligation to let them in. And so on and so forth, I think my point is fairly simple, but if it needs futher explanation as to why this is a bad thing, I'll be happy to elaborate.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be referring to the right of an entire people or nation (not a single citizen) to declare themselves independent, like former colonies, or distinct regions or nations within a larger state. That proposal I would give more consideration too. But I'm afraid not this one. The consequences are immeasurable.

I was a little unsure of your terminology, but I meant the right of an ethnic group, rather than one individual. For instance, this would mean that the Welsh or Scottish could declare independance from the UK (not that I'm from either country).

This is way, way too broad.

Joining terrorist groups/alliances is very illegal in my nation for example, and its going to stay that way. Just one example, but you get the idea :).

I was a little unsure of your terminology, but I meant the right of an ethnic group, rather than one individual. For instance, this would mean that the Welsh or Scottish could declare independance from the UK (not that I'm from either country).

However, your proposal doesn't say that. It uses the term "any citizen" or all citizens. Furthermore, even if we take your example of the Welsh, by your proposal's wording, either one citizen could become self-determined individually (either promoting anarchy or abolishing migration laws depending what path of logic you go down). Or, part of a nation could declare independence. Your proposal does not give any provisions on how a nation would secede from its government. What percentage of the Welsh nation would have to aprove? 50%? 75%? 100%? And what of the Welshpeople who wanted to stay in the UK?

And what differentiates a nation from any other group of people?

These are things you should think about. If you mean to write a proposal allowing for the self-determination of national groups from larger, multi-national states, (which is what I think you mean but have not expressed well) then a re-write would be in order. Consider some of the issues I have raised. It's a good idea in principal, as (OOC) afterall, in RL there is a right to self-determination. (IC) But this right can only be granted to clearly defined nations (not individuals or small groups) and only then in clearly defined circumstances.

I don't know about the body itself, but I just don't like the way it's written. The format doesn't look like what should be used in a UN proposal, to me.

Details can be ironed out later, what's the point in writing a detailed act if there's no support for it?

To simplify issues lets take Wilson's idea and expand it. His fifth point in the fourteen points was:

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

Thus, I am advocating the right for a ethnic group to determine questions of sovereignty by themselves. So, if they want independance they can have it. and if they want to join an already existant nation they can do this. If any state supresses this right, whether by denying this right to a people who live within its borders or through invasion, this must be stopped. Essentially, we would be declaring annexation or retention of foreign land illegal.

Critically, there are certain criteria on which this right would depend:
i) The transfer of power being approved by a plebicisite which has at least 90% turnout and 65% in favour of transfer.
ii) The ability for a new nation to survive economically.
iii) The ability for a new nation to survive militarily.
iv) The ability for a new nation to provide the political framework that its citizens want.

The process would be administered by the UN and any side in a dispute over the Right to self determination would be given a maximum of one year to launch an appeal and win/loose it. After this time if the decision is not altered it would be carried out.

If people want to join a nation that has been ruled illegal by the UN, well I suppose they wouldn't be allowed.

It depends how you would define joining a new society.

I have no problem with two million or more of my people moving to GeminiLand, but I have a serious issue with them just saying that part of the actual country of TilEnca is now part of GeminiLand.

That's the way it works, I'm afraid.

By eck tha's a reet load o'codswallops ere. If tha lives Ooop North in t'grand nation o'Bahgum then tha's got to convert to Northern....drink bitter, eat pies, talk proper and learn about pigeons....

I think you're slightly missing the point here. This is about respecting the rights of man and so on. Ok this may be costly, but then so are many other UN resolutions.

Perhaps your government is only semi-autonomous, then this will benefit you!

Is this seriously saying that of the Central Courtyard of Enn wants to declare independence, while still being at the heart of Enn itself, I have to accept that? Quite simply, no way.

Excuse me, but doesn't that make voting silly? Oh we lost right thats it I'm off to join with Bogratvia etc.

Err No I don't think so. There have to be some restraints otherwise freedom loses all meaning

I'm not sure there's any meaning in freedom anyway, but the point is that you are all simply showing double-standards. You would encourage the Custodias to seek independance from their oppressprs the Frats, but you're all unwilling do give in to popular demand yourselves! What can I say?

I suppose this proposal will never get the support it needs. Perhaps one day, following mass genocide of some split-away nation, people will regret having not enacted this bill.

This proposal would allow nations to invade other nations with no trouble at all, and split countries up with ease. I think that's why it has not garnered any support.

That's high international politics for you, I suppose.

The right to self-determination does not mean complete freedom to do whatever you wish to do. This proposal will legitimize acts of treason and civil unrest in my country alone.

The proposal will force us to depart from our national creed of racial diversity and ethnic integration. This proposal is legitimizing racial segregation in disguise. I cannot allow my citizens to have a blank check to stir up rebellions for the sole purpose of self-determination.

I suppose this proposal will never get the support it needs. Perhaps one day, following mass genocide of some split-away nation, people will regret having not enacted this bill.

I don't think this resolution would help prevent genocide any more than legislation already passed, such as the Eon Convention on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention.

Wow. The form took so long, I forgot what I was going to say.

My knee-jerk reaction is to support it if J opposes it, but the word "citizen" gives me pause.

As much as it pains me, I agree with her.

This proposal is legitimizing racial segregation

But you see this only applies to large populations of several millions; it's not for a street-by-street application! So, this really means that your populations is already thus

But you see this only applies to large populations of several millions; it's not for a street-by-street application! So, this really means that your populations is already thus

Allow me to state the disputed NSUN proposal.

Synopsis: All citizens can join whatever group they want and shouldn't be forced to be part of anything.

Thesis: All citizens should be treated equally no matter what political circumstances or political or economic power. Therefore they MUST be given the oppurtunity to join whatever region or alliance they wish. They MUST NOT be forced to join any entity unwillingly.

Remedy: Should any citizen, region or alliance attempt to prevent this right from being exercised, then this aforementioned entity MUST, depending on the circumstances, be expelled from the UN or have diplomatic or trade sanctions put on them if necessary.


How can you say that this proposal "only applies to large populations of several millions" when the proposal clearly mandates that "[a]ll citizens" in every NSUN member nation "be given the opportunity to join whatever region or alliance" regardless of that nation's interest? Plus, NSUN proposals are automatically enforced in ALL member states regardless of the size of their population.

Every government represented in NSUN has the duty to serve security and stability in their countries with the principles of global cooperation. If this proposal is ratified to become a resolution, we are putting state and world security, stability, and interest in jeopardy by giving citizens a blank check to stir up rebellions, coups, and secessions for the sole purpose of self-determination by principles of ethnic segregation.

Allowing separatist citizens to join whatever region or alliance they wish is an open door for global conflict. Separatist citizens may form strong alliances and create an overwhelming force of rogue regimes threatening international security. We cannot allow this kind of hazard to happen by entitling citizens some sort of absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is the total neglect of law. And neglect of law gives rise to brute force.

To all NSUN members and honorable delegates:

This proposal takes away the sense of responsibility for the consequences of our people's action. The rule of law and the threat of punishment is an effective tool to deter violence. Let us not direct ourselves to catastrophe and destruction. Condemn this proposal and avoid playing the politics of bad faith.

Not only is this folly counter to the inherent order of things, it is impractical, impossible to enforce, and morally wretched. Lord Atum shall not support this resolution, and by His will, may it be cast down into oblivion.

- Lord Jehvah, Lord Atum’s Representative to the UN

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Now get the light this time. And you might get another blanket out of the closet. And do warm up your feet!

:p

- Lord Jehvah, Lord Atum’s Representative to the UN
For a moment there, I misread that as "Lord Jehovah", and was going to comment on how all the Christian nations must be rather envious of you.
:D