NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposed Argument in Favor of the Repeal of UN Resolution #10

RECOGNIZING that different societies hold differing expectations of the degree of privacy their members should enjoy, AND

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that every nation has the opportunity (and sometimes repeated opportunities) to offer or refuse privacy rights to its citizens through various Issues (eg. #21 ["Police Consider 'Big Brother' Anti-Crime System"] and #37 ["Traffic Cops Needed on Information Superhighway?"]), many of which recur from time to time, AND

DECLARING that it should not be the business of these United Nations to dictate to its Members matters of a strictly internal nature, but rather its policy to allow the Membership to excersize sovereignty over such affairs

THE UNITED NATIONS

HEREBY REPEALS United Nations Resolution #10 ("Stop privacy intrusion"), leaving this matter to be regulated by the individual Members as they see fit.

Proposed Argument in Favor of the Repeal of UN Resolution #10

RECOGNIZING that different societies hold differing expectations of the degree of privacy their members should enjoy, AND

Such is the gist of the Rights and Duties of UN States resolution. The right of each state to jurisdictional authority over the people and things in its own territory.


FURTHER RECOGNIZING that every nation has the opportunity (and sometimes repeated opportunities) to offer or refuse privacy rights to its citizens through various Issues (eg. #21 ["Police Consider 'Big Brother' Anti-Crime System"] and #37 ["Traffic Cops Needed on Information Superhighway?"]), many of which recur from time to time, AND

Normal activities of government. Including the International Government, that is the confederation of states known as the United Nations.


DECLARING that it should not be the business of these United Nations to dictate to its Members matters of a strictly internal nature, but rather its policy to allow the Membership to excersize sovereignty over such affairs

However, Rights and Duties also recognizes that International laws, rightly, immunize individual state laws. Such is the logical extension of multi-national confederate government. It is already recognized that "Human Rights issues" which includes the rights of the each and every individual citizen of all member states, are international in scope. This includes the rights in accoradance with the accepted standards in lieu of jurisprudence. If the NSUN has the power and authority to apply judiciary standards of procedure upon all member states, to provide fair and equal treatment before the law. Then this also extends to the information gathering process to which states can apply in their attempt to prosecute those accused of violation of particular laws. That is, "Stop Privacy Intrustion" is the logical extention of other international laws in regards to jurisprudence, as dictated in "Due Process", "Right to Fair Trial", "Definition of Right to Fair Trial", and "Habeus Corpus". That is, all maintain the same level of equal protections and fairness before the law. Immunizing particular legal powers of the state in jurisprudence to the benefit of the individuals themselves. That is, the intent of repeal, to apply powers barred by "Privacy Intrusion", are indicative of the unwillingness of the state to abide by International Standards of jurisprudence as outlined by other judiciary restrictions placed upon the state.

As such, The Constitutional Republic of Tekania will not support the repeal of the resolution barring privacy intrusion upon individuals, by the state, as the repeal itself is counter to the judicial standards of conduct, as outlined in International Law.

This is the first of a series of promised proposals to repeal UN Resolutions that violate the principle of national sovereignty.

First, what is "national sovereignty"?

In a nutshell, it is the principle that nations have the right to govern all affairs within their borders. By this principle, the only legitimate area of interest for a body such as the N.S.U.N. would be international relations, including trade, diplomacy, matters of war and peace, industrial or commercial standards, international banking and currency exchange, health and environmental issues that are global in scope, etc. We violate this principle when we decide that one set of national values are preferable to another, and attempt to mold the world accordingly.

In the United States of Allemande, we practice democracy in accordance with Federalist principles. This means that we assign limited and articulated powers to each constituent government - federal, state, or municipal - in accordance with that governments proper geographical and logical scope.

Land use issues are a good example. Municipalities pass zoning laws, and have the sole right to do so. States can modify these laws to meet state regulations regarding natural resource management, a historical area of interesr to them. Federal regulations only come into play where there are issues that would affect multiple states or the nation as a whole. The same patter can be seen in commercial licensure and regulation, professional testing and certification, and a host of other areas.

This model devolves the maximum amound of authority and autonomy to local officials and populations, centralizing regulatory power only wher it must be centralized because the issue can not be logically dealt with at a lower level. This creates a situation in chich communities are largely free to set their own standards and live life as they please with only minimal interference from ousiders, and then only because the matter in hand can not be logically left under local control.

Applying this principle to the N.S.U.N., we should not dictate to the Membership anything which could reasonably be left to our individual countries without network effects - IOW, where there is no impact on one country from any other countries choices.

Privacy is clearly such a matter. It comes down to a question of what the individual can keep concealed from government or his/her peers, and as such has no effect on other governments or their citizens. U.N. Resolution #10 was the product of a misplaced desire by certain nations to impose their standards of what is and is not proper on the entire Membership, regardless of culture, history, or local conditions.

Allemande respects the right to privacy, and extends it to its own citizens. We urge all nations to do this. But we do not wish to force others to live as we would live. That is not our right.

However, Rights and Duties also recognizes that International laws, rightly, immunize individual state laws. Such is the logical extension of multi-national confederate government. It is already recognized that "Human Rights issues" which includes the rights of the each and every individual citizen of all member states, are international in scope. This includes the rights in accoradance with the accepted standards in lieu of jurisprudence. If the NSUN has the power and authority to apply judiciary standards of procedure upon all member states, to provide fair and equal treatment before the law. Then this also extends to the information gathering process to which states can apply in their attempt to prosecute those accused of violation of particular laws. That is, "Stop Privacy Intrustion" is the logical extention of other international laws in regards to jurisprudence, as dictated in "Due Process", "Right to Fair Trial", "Definition of Right to Fair Trial", and "Habeus Corpus". That is, all maintain the same level of equal protections and fairness before the law. Immunizing particular legal powers of the state in jurisprudence to the benefit of the individuals themselves. That is, the intent of repeal, to apply powers barred by "Privacy Intrusion", are indicative of the unwillingness of the state to abide by International Standards of jurisprudence as outlined by other judiciary restrictions placed upon the state.Except that the rights observed here are also, in many ways, contrary to the principle of national sovereignty.

You do raise a valid point, however: I'll probably have to work backwards through the NSUN Resolutions in order to avoid potential legal conflicts.

So for now I'll hear some arguments, modify the wording, and save this up for later.

Except that the repeal of the Privacy Intrusion ban. Sets the groundwork for the repeal of all other matter of judiciary standards of conduct. Thus, it would then be possible, without these, to prosecute individuals without regards to states rights, of themselves. Nation A would be able to try individuals from Nation B for crimes commited in Nation B, rather than respecting the authority of Nation B in such matters of jurisprudence. Thus all rights granted member states for authority of their own territories is nullified from Right and Duties... Thus opening the entire UN community to rank lawlessness.

IOW. National Sovereignty does not exist, while in membership in this body politic. That is, the only true sovereignty left to individual states is their sovereign choice of membership in the body of these United Nations. And their ability in the determination of the course of international law, in the choice of such laws before the body politic by vote. That is, pure and unadulterated National Sovereignty is counter-intuitive to the operation, form and function of the body politic of these United Nations. Thus all national sovereignty claims are held invalid in lieu of membership. Sovereignty, in such claims exists only in the agreement the state has entered with the international body politic.

This is also understood in the fundamental principle that the locality has the right to throw off higher authority and form new unions with itself for the formation of newer government. Much as individuals themselves make the ultimate determination of their own rulership. And independant states make determination of their federal representation.

A ban on privacy intrusion is, in and of itself, a recognition of the limits placed upon government in lieu of the principles of federation. That is, the smallest component of government has the best capabilities of the governing ability. Thus, logically the individual has the most power and capability at self-government over the entirety of the body politic at all levels. Thus, in argument, it is fair to impose restrictions upon the higher bodies, in regards to the micromanagment of individual components for the benefit of locality. Thus, it can be understood, that the principle of jurisprudence as outlined in International Law, including the restrictions upon intruding upon the privacy of individuals, recognizes the individual as the most sovereign body of all.

Thus, Human Rights issues... Including the rights of citizens in regards to the enforcement of law is held tantamount as an situation which is international in scope. That is, all citizens of all states of the NSUN deserve equal treatment before the law. Even if the imposition of this equal treatment upon individual states, is counter-intuitive to the wishes of the locality.

Thus, the Constitutional Republic of Tekania rules that such National Sovereignty issue is held as a religious belief by other states, and while we recognize each states right to view the principle of "sovereign states" as outlined by the theological viewpoint of the "Divine Right of Kings(States)"... We are opposed to codifying such religion into the international laws, even if by ban to enforce such belief in divine right.