NationStates Jolt Archive

My shiny new proposal reads as follows:

RESOLUTION:
No resolution passed can allow United Nations members to intrude or intervene in affairs that are fundamentally within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation. No UN resolution will require a nation to seek resolution from the UN regarding affairs that fall within domestic jurisdiction.

EXCEPTIONS:
Affairs of a member nation fall outside “domestic jurisdiction” when they present large-scale societal collapse which threaten the safety of other nations. That is, have the potential, and capacity for demonstrable border and cross-border consequences.

:eek:

My shiny new proposal reads as follows:

RESOLUTION:
No resolution passed can allow United Nations members to intrude or intervene in affairs that are fundamentally within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation. No UN resolution will require a nation to seek resolution from the UN regarding affairs that fall within domestic jurisdiction.

EXCEPTIONS:
Affairs of a member nation fall outside “domestic jurisdiction” when they present large-scale societal collapse which threaten the safety of other nations. That is, have the potential, and capacity for demonstrable border and cross-border consequences.

:eek:

Interesting, and possibly illegal because it explicitly tries to limit future legislation.

So basically what you are trying to do is 1) prevent nations from interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations without good reason and 2) prevent the UN from requiring member states to...?

My shiny new proposal reads as follows:

RESOLUTION:
No resolution passed can allow United Nations members to intrude or intervene in affairs that are fundamentally within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation. No UN resolution will require a nation to seek resolution from the UN regarding affairs that fall within domestic jurisdiction.

EXCEPTIONS:
Affairs of a member nation fall outside “domestic jurisdiction” when they present large-scale societal collapse which threaten the safety of other nations. That is, have the potential, and capacity for demonstrable border and cross-border consequences.

:eek:


Illegal.

Suck gas, evil doer!

Illegal.

Suck gas, evil doer!

Did you just instruct CaP to breathe? :eek:

*continues pouring gasoline over the Cup and Fork representative*

We don't care if he breathes or not.

*lights match, tosses same onto Cup and Fork representative*

Anyone bring marshmallows?

*continues pouring gasoline over the Cup and Fork representative*

We don't care if he breathes or not.

*lights match, tosses same onto Cup and Fork representative*

Anyone bring marshmallows?

Nah. But I can do a great tribal dance around the fire if you like. :D We can pray to the Mods for their favor and use him as a sacrifice in our celebration.

I mean really - a resolution that would completely prevent the UN from affecting any internal processes.

As anything could be in some fascinating way twisted to affect the internal processes of a country, this would basically shut down the UN.

Interesting, and possibly illegal because it explicitly tries to limit future legislation.

So basically what you are trying to do is 1) prevent nations from interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations without good reason and 2) prevent the UN from requiring member states to...?

Damn, I'm upset this isn't clear. (2) just means that a nation state is not obliged to submit, offer, present, etc. any of their domestic affairs for UN scrutiny.

It does nto limit UN powers in my view, because the UN should (a) not be dealing with domestic affairs anyway, it is an international org. (b) if a nation's domestic affairs get out of hand and adversely affect another nation [eg: military build up on intersecting borders, military coup, economic collapse or a nation-wide famine to name but a few. These are just suggestions by the way, and I know that there are UN resolutions that specifically deal with such crises - hence the second clause], then it falls within the realm/jurisdiction of the UN, which is what they are there for.

Anyway, it has been deleted and I've been given yet another warning. It wasn't the wording or layout of the resolution they were concerned with, only that it limited UN powers. But as I have already stated, I don't see the rationale behind this. I actually just wanted to limit the amount of resolutions that seemed to override domestic legal issues, and the like. A problem that the moderators themselves have commented on.

I think if anything is limited it is this game, as it is not allowed to evolve.

Thanks for your time, Texan.

I mean really - a resolution that would completely prevent the UN from affecting any internal processes.

As anything could be in some fascinating way twisted to affect the internal processes of a country, this would basically shut down the UN.

It doesn't do any such thing.

Damn, I'm upset this isn't clear. (2) just means that a nation state is not obliged to submit, offer, present, etc. any of their domestic affairs for UN scrutiny.

It does nto limit UN powers in my view, because the UN should (a) not be dealing with domestic affairs anyway, it is an international org. (b) if a nation's domestic affairs get out of hand and adversely affect another nation [eg: military build up on intersecting borders, military coup, economic collapse or a nation-wide famine to name but a few. These are just suggestions by the way, and I know that there are UN resolutions that specifically deal with such crises - hence the second clause], then it falls within the realm/jurisdiction of the UN, which is what they are there for.

Anyway, it has been deleted and I've been given yet another warning. It wasn't the wording or layout of the resolution they were concerned with, only that it limited UN powers. But as I have already stated, I don't see the rationale behind this. I actually just wanted to limit the amount of resolutions that seemed to override domestic legal issues, and the like. A problem that the moderators themselves have commented on.

I think if anything is limited it is this game, as it is not allowed to evolve.

Thanks for your time, Texan.

No problem. I happen to agree with you that the UN should not be mandating domestic policies. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to vote down the proposals that attempt to mandate domestic policies, which I and my region have been trying to do for a very long time indeed. We just don't have the voting power to do it, though. :(

It doesn't do any such thing.

Yes, it does.

In the first case, your proposal is highly illegal. So it will be destroyed on submission - no questions there.

Secondly, there is no current resolution that I could not twist to say it affects my internal affairs. As such, everything would be illegal, and the UN could do nothing ever again. That's twice illegal.


It does nto limit UN powers in my view, because the UN should (a) not be dealing with domestic affairs anyway, it is an international org.

Yes, you did not read the FAQ. We knew that.



(b) if a nation's domestic affairs get out of hand and adversely affect another nation [eg: military build up on intersecting borders, military coup, economic collapse or a nation-wide famine to name but a few. These are just suggestions by the way, and I know that there are UN resolutions that specifically deal with such crises - hence the second clause],

Point them out, if you would. I see none on the NSUN Resolutions page.
If you're referring to the "real life United Nations", you're yet again showing "you know not of which you speak".



then it falls within the realm/jurisdiction of the UN, which is what they are there for.


Reread the FAQ. The UN is NOT here for stability, international or otherwise.



Anyway, it has been deleted and I've been given yet another warning. It wasn't the wording or layout of the resolution they were concerned with, only that it limited UN powers. But as I have already stated, I don't see the rationale behind this. I actually just wanted to limit the amount of resolutions that seemed to override domestic legal issues, and the like. A problem that the moderators themselves have commented on.

You were warned you'd get a warning. If you're that hard up to leave the UN, just leave, don't have the mods boot you. The UN can make resolutions on anything it wants, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. You are automatically in compliance, regardless of how you answer issues.

Like it or not, this is not the "Real Life UN".

Under the current ruleset, your proposal ceases to be legal right here:

No resolution

So, two words in and you're already violating the rules, specifically the ban on Proposals that attempt to limit the UN.

In the first case, your proposal is highly illegal. So it will be destroyed on submission - no questions there.

Yes, I know.

Secondly, there is no current resolution that I could not twist to say it affects my internal affairs. As such, everything would be illegal, and the UN could do nothing ever again. That's twice illegal.

That's my point. As it stands an international body can meddle in domestic affairs. Most of my proposals are protest proposals. There is no law against those - they just get deleted, but not without people debating them and seeing them. Seeing how the game MIGHT be improved upon, that is.

Yes, you did not read the FAQ. We knew that.

See above. Gee, you people really like to assume things, don't you. I'm well aware of the rules.

Reread the FAQ. The UN is NOT here for stability, international or otherwise.

As above.

Trust me, if the UN operated as I wanted it to, there would be no stability because people choose to be 'evil' in these sorts of games. So, even with the 'limitations' placed on domestic law, there would always be a testing of the UN's powers in international affairs. In fact it would probably provoke it - much more fun, and far more interactive.

You were warned you'd get a warning. If you're that hard up to leave the UN, just leave, don't have the mods boot you. The UN can make resolutions on anything it wants, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. You are automatically in compliance, regardless of how you answer issues.

Yeah, and how stupid is that! What you are saying is that if I join the UN, I may as well turn off my issues and walk away from the PC for a month and let the UN shape my nation. Woohoo! Riveting stuff.

Like it or not, this is not the "Real Life UN".

Er, yeah ... and?

So, I can't submit protest proposals that seek to limit taxes, but the UN can meddle in internal matters on everything else. Typical. :headbang:

Just showing my sympathy with Cup and Fork, is all.

So, I can't submit protest proposals that seek to limit taxes, but the UN can meddle in internal matters on everything else. Typical. :headbang:

There would be work required to enact a proposal to limit taxes - coding and so forth. That's why it was rejected.

*yack yack yack yack*



Let's see... so far, you've managed to recreate yourself as a pain, got booted, and nothing got done.

Thrilling.

If you want to positively alter the UN, I'd suggest working with someone who knows what is going on - not "I'm making random and clueless proposals I know will get shot down to make a point!" - because that doesn't make points, it makes clutter. End result - someone sees your name, they ignore your proposal.

It doesn't do any such thing.
:headbang:


oh, in my hands it most certainly would!

Let's see... so far, you've managed to recreate yourself as a pain, got booted, and nothing got done.

Thrilling.

If you want to positively alter the UN, I'd suggest working with someone who knows what is going on - not "I'm making random and clueless proposals I know will get shot down to make a point!" - because that doesn't make points, it makes clutter. End result - someone sees your name, they ignore your proposal.

I think you're a little upset, I'll wait until you've taken your medication.

I think you're a little upset, I'll wait until you've taken your medication.

Gee, a flame from you. Who woulda thunk it?

Gee, a flame from you. Who woulda thunk it?

Well, you do seem a little stressed out. I mean even a couple of the moderators, in reply to some of my posts, are talking about changing the way the UN works [not that I'm suggesting that I had anything to do with it, as people have brought it up before]. So I can't see why it should bother you. I'm quite sure that the mods can manage without your ... er ... zeal. ;)

Well, you do seem a little stressed out. I mean even a couple of the moderators, in reply to some of my posts, are talking about changing the way the UN works [not that I'm suggesting that I had anything to do with it, as people have brought it up before]. So I can't see why it should bother you. I'm quite sure that the mods can manage without your ... er ... zeal. ;)

Unnecessary and counterproductive. Re-evaluate.

Unnecessary and counterproductive. Re-evaluate.

What is? Re-evaluate what? Oh, the proposal, I'd forgotten about that. I knew we were discussing something.