NationStates Jolt Archive

The Neutral Republic of Aeruillin requests to briefly draw attention to a matter it has observed within present UN proposals.

Namely, that some nations are proposing repeals to "get rid" of redundant resolutions - usually because a new resolution has replaced it. I would like to point out that a repeal, when passed, does not delete the resolution in question, but rather adds a new resolution and marks the old one as invalid. Thus, a "repeal" does not actually remove redundant resolutions, but rather doubles the number of redundant resolutions. This "cutting down on bureaucratic waste" only clogs up the records with more buraeucratic waste.

Seeing that next to none of these proposals ever reach quorum (thankfully), I assume this is clear to most delegates. However, the proposals continue to be submitted. I am hoping that those who do so will read this and understand the senselessness of that action.

We debated this at some length when we repealed 'Education For All'. It was decided it was nessassary on the way that the games mechanics work with relation to your nations budget.

could be wrong, but thats why I ended up voting in favour. Hmmmm can't find it to link to, most annoying :(

I would be inclined to argue that whilst it does increase the "paperwork", the legislative effect is that the proposal is no longer enforced.

So in one sense it does double up, but in another it does clear the slate.

whilst it kinda adds to the paperwork, it does remove the economic impact that the redundant resolution has on economies

The Neutral Republic of Aeruillin requests to briefly draw attention to a matter it has observed within present UN proposals.

Namely, that some nations are proposing repeals to "get rid" of redundant resolutions - usually because a new resolution has replaced it. I would like to point out that a repeal, when passed, does not delete the resolution in question, but rather adds a new resolution and marks the old one as invalid. Thus, a "repeal" does not actually remove redundant resolutions, but rather doubles the number of redundant resolutions. This "cutting down on bureaucratic waste" only clogs up the records with more buraeucratic waste.

Seeing that next to none of these proposals ever reach quorum (thankfully), I assume this is clear to most delegates. However, the proposals continue to be submitted. I am hoping that those who do so will read this and understand the senselessness of that action.

It "removes them" in the sense of removing the legal power behind such. The resolutions are listed still, in a repealed sense. But it is not increasing redundency. There has been little in the way of removing Redundant resolutions:

For example, before there were two seperate legal acts... One insuring all children under the age of 16 a right to free education... And another for ones under the age of 18...... The former was removed as being redundant... Since the second performed the same act... It was deemed unnecassary to apply this twice, and thus the first enactment was repealed, to give the second full enactment on the issue. To date, that has been the only redundance removed by repeal. Also, the "gay Rights" resolution would be applicable as such, since the "Universal Bill of Rights", the "Universal Freedom of Choice", the "Dicrimination Accord", the "Sexual Freedom" and the "Definition of Marriage" surplants all power evercized by this resolution.

The Neutral Republic of Aeruillin requests to briefly draw attention to a matter it has observed within present UN proposals.

Namely, that some nations are proposing repeals to "get rid" of redundant resolutions - usually because a new resolution has replaced it. I would like to point out that a repeal, when passed, does not delete the resolution in question, but rather adds a new resolution and marks the old one as invalid. Thus, a "repeal" does not actually remove redundant resolutions, but rather doubles the number of redundant resolutions. This "cutting down on bureaucratic waste" only clogs up the records with more buraeucratic waste.

The issue is not the number of resolutions (I mean with 100 resolutions already I think we're past the point where the large size of international law is a problem). The issue is, mainly, clarity. New members come to the UN and read the passed resolutions, which are often very confusing, and have trouble to see what is being enforced and what isn't. For example, "Required Basic Healtcare", which is no longer enforced, has no disclaimer saying such; "RBH replacement" is but a few resolutions away, and it isn't clear which needs to be followed. A new member (or any member for that matter) has no indication except in fairly old forum topics that most of the UN follows "RBH Replacement".

Likewise, "Gay Rights" is not a useful document to keep around. Is it license for member nations to ignore later resolutions on discrimination to gays, or is it not the force of law anymore?

A repeal does two things, it removes the potency of the document as legally binding, and puts a nice big "THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN REPEALED" on the repealed resolution. I want simpler instructions from the UN (as far as what laws I have to enforce), so I advocate removing some poorly-worded or outdated resolutions from the repertoire. And I want more new members to understand what enforcement is required in their nations more quickly. I will continueto advocate and submit repeals on the basis of outdatedness, reduntancy, and irrelevance.


Seeing that next to none of these proposals ever reach quorum (thankfully), I assume this is clear to most delegates. However, the proposals continue to be submitted. I am hoping that those who do so will read this and understand the senselessness of that action.

Most proposals--especially repeals--never reach quorum. That most of "these" never reach quorum isn't indicative of UN member's feelings for them. "Education for All" reached quorum, and was passed. Tomorrow, when I submit the repeal of "Required Basic Healthcare" I hope it will reach quorum and pass, too. Only if one had data regarding how many repeals with campaigns comparable to other passed resolutions failed and why would I agree that maybe there is a dislike among delegates of cleaning up passed resolutions. As of now, that claim is unsubstantiated.

The Neutral Republic of Aeruillin requests to briefly draw attention to a matter it has observed within present UN proposals.

Namely, that some nations are proposing repeals to "get rid" of redundant resolutions - usually because a new resolution has replaced it. I would like to point out that a repeal, when passed, does not delete the resolution in question, but rather adds a new resolution and marks the old one as invalid. Thus, a "repeal" does not actually remove redundant resolutions, but rather doubles the number of redundant resolutions. This "cutting down on bureaucratic waste" only clogs up the records with more buraeucratic waste.

Seeing that next to none of these proposals ever reach quorum (thankfully), I assume this is clear to most delegates. However, the proposals continue to be submitted. I am hoping that those who do so will read this and understand the senselessness of that action.

I'd like to go on the record that I personally agree with your logic here -- 100%!

There certainly are good reasons for repeals, like having a chance to improve or remove a resolution / idea that is no longer agreed upon. But when looking through the proposal queue I noticed that one of these redundant arguements was being applied against the Tsunami Warning System, claiming that the Natural Disaster Act made TWS's TWEC "no longer necessary".

First, it is common practice to reaffirm ideals. Second, the appropriate action isn't to suggest that the TWEC shouldn't exist, but rather to suggest (and a resolution or repeal is not the way to do this) that the TWEC is now organizationally responsible to (and placed under the authority of) the NDAO.

In real life NOAA is a large organization, with many smaller organizations, include the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/

It is *OK* to move things. And while it might be interesting to debate something like this, there is a finite amount of time to debate resolutions and repeals, and an inifinite amount of topics we can debate and work on. Let's not waste proposal queue time and resolution floor time on what are purely "administrative" issues.



O/T: Last night while jogging (we'll the cool down, walking part), I noticed tons of chalk art on the streets that local kids had made. What I found interesting is that some child had written the word "Tsunami" in chalk in some sort of symbol or seal they were working on. I couldn't read the rest of the words, but tried. I just find it very interesting that natural disasters are now the type of thing that little children are thinking about and including in their urban street art. (I'm a big fan of handing a child crayons or chalk and encouraging them to go to town and express themselves! I certainly did as a child ... and most of the time in appropriate places.) ;)