NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: United Nations International Anti-Aggression Policy

RECOGNIZES: The existence of agressor nations.

FURTHER RECOGNIZES: That acts of agression are inhumane and promote suffering.

CLARIFIES: This resolution does not condemn use of force to defend one's nation.

FURTHER CLARIFIES: This resolution is not a proclamation of world peace.

MANDATES: That Acts of aggression are to be condemned by all members and all available members are to come to the aid (under joint UN command) of the victim nation.

FURTHER CLARIFIES: That no nation is required to send troops, but are required to impose sanctions on the war economy of the agressor nations.

STATES: After the defeat of the invasion the nation is NOT to step outside previous borders for national interest, or economic gain.

ASKS: For increased international security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the increasingly hostile environment that is the world it is seemingly important to attempt to put a lid on rogue and extensivley violent nations.
Please advocate support for the document, or suggest further drafting here.

Thanks,
Balkany
Member MLP

Well, this is entirely toothless. "Sanctions" are of limited to no use in this world, when the UN does not have global power - what a nation cannot get from one of us, they will get from elsewhere.

Worthless without teeth, this needs rethinking.

Toothless. Yay! I like toothless. It tickles my national sovereignty bone.

[Edit: I realized after I wrote this that it may have sounded very naughty. Sorry.]

Toothless. Yay! I like toothless. It tickles my national sovereignty bone.

[Edit: I realized after I wrote this that it may have sounded very naughty. Sorry.]

*sends you some lovely ladies to "tickle your national sovereignty bone" all night long and well into tomorrow"*

We promote the small businesswoman. :D

The Nation of Vanhalenburgh will not support this proposal in any form. We withhold the right of “First Strike” capabilities of nation who might directly threaten our nation or our allies or our national interests, even if they have not overtly or covert attacked.

We do not have a history of aggression but we feel that it is imperative that we safeguard our rights to protect our interests both at home and abroad.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

It is not toothless, maybe it is just my wording. It seems to me that there is so much interregional insecurity that it is imparative for the UN to have a policy.
It allows the UN to defend nations....
what about this "drafted" copy with a substitute article.

Description: United Nations International Anti-Aggression Policy

RECOGNIZES: The existence of agressor nations.

FURTHER RECOGNIZES: That acts of agression are inhumane and promote suffering.

CLARIFIES: This resolution does not condemn use of force to defend one's nation.

FURTHER CLARIFIES: This resolution is not a proclamation of world peace.

MANDATES: That Acts of aggression are to be condemned by all members and all available members are to come to the aid (under joint UN command) of the victim nation.

CHARGES: Nations to impose sanctions on the war economy of the agressor nations to cripple the attack.

FURTHER CHARGES: All nations and regions with available military personnell to defend the victim nation/region.

STATES: After the defeat of the invasion the nation is NOT to step outside previous borders for national interest, or economic gain.

ASKS: For increased international security.

We believe it important that those nations with a healthy respect for freedom be able to act militarily on behalf of oppressed peoples. So no, we don't accept this.