NationStates Jolt Archive

To all well meaning UN delegates. Please support this resolution to illegitimise Jihadist states.

A resolution against terror
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Ricardo and Smith

Description: Jihadist states shall be deemed illegitimate and undemocratic.
No religion gives the justifcation needed for war.
In a time of great insecurity, all well-meaning states will gently encourge Jihadist states to democratise.
- Trade sanctions.
- Diplomatic meetings.
- A policy of containment.

Jihad can also describe an individuals interpretation of faith. This resolution respects this distinction on an individual level.

I'm sorry - what is a "Jihadist State"? I've never heard the term before. A jihad is a struggle, so are you advocating the illegitimising of struggling states?

Yes... could we change the terminology to "terrorist states?" There are psychotic Christian and atheist nations out there too.

Rights and Duties of UN States

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
You'd have to repeal this one first.

The term Jihadist State refers a nation state which tries to expand its territory in the name of religion.

A 'Jihadist' may or may not be a terrorist. As the resolution clearly identifies.
A 'Jihadist State' is a supporter of terrorist actions.

There are terrorists who act in the name of Christianity.
But there are NO Christian states which want to expand their territory in the name of religion (e.g - The Crusades). This is because most Christian countries are secular.

So the term Jihadist state is not a misuse of the word 'Jihad'.

The resolution is not against the resolution stated above.

-Economic sanctions

-Containment

-Diplomatic meetings.

None of this infringes upon the sovreignty of Jihadist States.

There are terrorists who act in the name of Christianity.
But there are NO Christian states which want to expand their territory in the name of religion (e.g - The Crusades). This is because most Christian countries are secular.


OOC: But I think you're confusing real life with NationsStates life. In the NationStates world there are in fact *many many MANY* Christian states like that. In fact, if you can even think of a type of state, then it exists here. Resolutions here must not be based on reallife situations. So you should consider amending this proposal to more apply more generally to all terrorist or expansionist states.

The resolution has not been confused with RL.
The resolution is against Jihadist Terror states.
Its name will not be changed in the interests of political correctness.

Id ask the UN moderators to just see how many votes it gets before removing it.

The resolution clearly indicates that religion and terror are not one and same.

But there are NO Christian states which want to expand their territory in the name of religion (e.g - The Crusades). This is because most Christian countries are secular.
There are some rather un-secular Christian countries kicking around here, who' d like to do exactly what you are describing.

The resolution is not against the resolution stated above. None of this infringes upon the sovreignty of Jihadist States.This does ...
Description: Jihadist states shall be deemed illegitimate and undemocratic.

Already, the UN does not legitimise states that sponsor terror.
That has already been identified in your above resolution.
'Interventions in sovereign nations'.

The new resolution builds upon the definition of terror states.

I request that UN moderators let UN Delegates decide.

The resolution does not infringe upon the soveriegnty of Jihadist regimes.
Sovereignty is a nations power or influence over their own affairs.

The UN can recognise a nation undemocratic. This does not mean that nation becomes democratic.

Rev.Ricardo.

The UN Mods (I'm not one, by the way) don't care what the UN membership thinks if they deem it illegal. It doesn't matter if it wins a popularity contest - if it's illegal, it gets removed.

Many players bring their proposals here to get input into improving their resolution, often prior to posting. Several people have made constructive comments on how you could improve your proposal and better the chance of having it accepted. You only comments seem to be to steamroller their objections flat, rather than attempting to find consensus. I can tell you from past experience that such methodology does not improve your chances of success.

This is a cooperative and contemplative body. You will find acceptance sooner once you realize that.

The resolution is not illegal.
For the resons above.
If your not a UN moderator,
Dont lecture me.
Thankyou.

The resolution is not illegal.
For the resons above.
If your not a UN moderator,
Dont lecture me.
Thankyou.

He is a UN moderator. In fact, I would say from all of the time he spends on this forum that he specializes in it. So you might want to listen to him.

The UN Mods (I'm not one, by the way) don't care what the UN membership thinks if they deem it illegal. It doesn't matter if it wins a popularity contest - if it's illegal, it gets removed..

This resolution proposes a stance against terror.
Even the RL UN cannot boast that.

Frisbeeteria doesn't hold the position of a UN mod, but of all of the ones who deals with the UN he's the most visible right now, making him a UN mod in the reality of how active he is with it despite his position. That's why I called him one.

Oh, one other thing: This is a proposal, not a resolution. It doesn't become a resolution until it is up for vote. And as it stands, it has serious problems that will get it deleted.

Krioval has a state religion. While it doesn't preclude other faiths, or even grant special privileges to those of the state faith, it does exist and is mentioned in political circles as such. Does this mean that every single war in which Krioval is involved becomes a "jihad", and that Krioval is a "jihadist state" by this proposal? That would be interesting, because Krioval is far more democratic than a good number of other UN members (not that level of democracy is necessarily directly correlative with more benign governance).

You've failed to respond to the very valid point that there are a wide range of aggressive theocracies in this world, of many religions. We believe it to be grossly offensive, both to Muslims and to the victims of other theocracies, that you would ask the UN to single out Muslim states, whilst ignoring the offences of many other governments of other theological persuasions.

This thread appears to have moved on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413221

Ricardo and Smith, it's customary to continue the discussion in the original thread, rather than opening a new thread for each revision. Please help us keep thread clutter at a minimum. Thank you.

iLock.