NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just finished my most recent draft of a proposal I am preparing to submit to the UN, but would like to make sure I have it categorized properly, due to the anal penal code (No pun intended) regarding improperly categorized proposals.

But, I digress.

The proposal I am preparing to submit is called "The Luxembourg Act"... basically, this proposal, if made a resolution, would grant the inalienable right of any sovereign state being guaranteed the right to remain completely neutral during any armed conflict. The act goes on to explain when a country is not granted that right (eg, if a country takes action to harm another country, economically, militarily, or otherwise, then that country must face the wrath of the country it crossed, and any allies who wish to help it), and the penal code that the UN would be obligated to enforce, should anyone violate this act.

At any rate, my question is, quite simply, what category should this act fall under? My common sense tells me that "International Security" would be the most appropriate category, however, the description which states that it would entail the "Increase of military and/or police budgets" leaves me to think that this is not the case. Upon reviewing the descriptions of each category, "Human Rights" seems to fit the best... But while this is a right in question, and humans are affected by it, something still doesn't seem quite right. To me, "Human Rights" seems like it would adress things such as the issue of Gay Marriage, UN peacekeepers raping babies in Somalia, the enforcements of racial quotas, or anything to that effect

Also, if anyone would like to see the proposal in question, or if any delegates would be willing to vote for it, and help make it a reality, I would be glad to do the former, and most grateful for the latter.

Lucky Maxwell, Grand Duke of Switaly

Okay, a few problems.

1) The UN doesn't have a police or military force.

2) The name is an obvious RL reference. That's illegal.

3) This already exists, though not as a resolution, and thus isn't necessary.

1. Who said anything about utilizing MILITARY force on the part of the UN? There are numerous punative actions that can be taken without any bloodshed.

2. It's a working title. Call me crazy, but somehow I think that the name could be changed without affecting the resolution at all.

3. Of course it exists, but that's why I've been calling it the Luxembourg act; because Luxembourg (In addition to Belgium and Lichenstein) declared it's neutrality during the Second World War (And I believe the first) but was invaded by and subsequently annexed to Germany. Neutrality is an right, of course, but if it is broken, what is done about it?

My proposal declares the support of all UN member nations for a country's right to remain neutral, and, in a failure to do so, may result in economic sanctions on the part of all member nations, or a possible expulsion from the UN.

1. Who said anything about utilizing MILITARY force on the part of the UN? There are numerous punative actions that can be taken without any bloodshed.

The only punitive options the UN has left is the TPP, which cannot be involved in cases of breaking neutrality.

2. It's a working title. Call me crazy, but somehow I think that the name could be changed without affecting the resolution at all.

But if left, it could get the proposal deleted for rules violations.

3. Of course it exists, but that's why I've been calling it the Luxembourg act; because Luxembourg (In addition to Belgium and Lichenstein) declared it's neutrality during the Second World War (And I believe the first) but was invaded by and subsequently annexed to Germany. Neutrality is an right, of course, but if it is broken, what is done about it?

That's why you make it a point to have allies. You get invaded, they invade the enemy. Or, you can be in a location that is difficult to invade (like underground) or keep a powerful military force on hand.

My proposal declares the support of all UN member nations for a country's right to remain neutral, and, in a failure to do so, may result in economic sanctions on the part of all member nations, or a possible expulsion from the UN.

The first punishment really can't be done (most UN nations would simply switch to trading with nonmember nations) and the second is illegal.

The first punishment really can't be done (most UN nations would simply switch to trading with nonmember nations) and the second is illegal.

The point of sanctions is not to punish all UN member nations, it is to punish the country in violation of the act... and while the nation in question may still trade with non-member nations, I'm sure that restrictions in the nearly 39,000 nations that ARE UN Members may very well be enough of an incentive to make a belligerent nation think twice for picking on a peaceful nation. Of course it's possible that a nation may be powerful enough to work around the law, but no law is perfect... Not only that, but are you telling me that no nation has ever been expeled from the UN?

That's why you make it a point to have allies. You get invaded, they invade the enemy. Or, you can be in a location that is difficult to invade (like underground) or keep a powerful military force on hand.

So basically, what you're telling me is, if you don't kiss the ass of a large, powerful, militaristic nation, and you don't have a huge, deadly army, and you get invaded my a neighboring nation who wants your land, marches in, rapes, tortures, and excecutes every last one of your citizens... then that's just tough, correct? Let's take a real-life example (Since we're in a forum), Liechenstein (And I'm using present-day figures, courtesy of BBC news, but work with me here) has 34,000 people... Germany (Modern day Germany, that is) Has close to 83 Million... Now, during this time (The Second World War, in case you haven't figured it out) they also posessed Austria (Which has just over 8 Million) The "Sudetenland" (Territory on the outer rim of the Czech Republic, which has probably about 2.5 million, including the huge city of Pilzen), and the Polish Corridor (Modern-Day Poland has about 39 Million people, and the Polish Corridor comprises roughly 1/4 of modern Poland, so we'll call that about 9 Million people)... Bringing the 3rd Reich to a grand total of nearly 103 Million native inhabitants (Remember, these territories were all German in origin)... Now, just for a point of referance, we'll say that 1 out of every 5 people is enlisted in the armies of Germany and Liechenstein, thus, the German army stands at about 20.6 Million enlisted Men & Women, and the Liechenstein army at a mere 6,800. Finally, we look at geography: Liechenstein is surrounded by Austria (Which was part of Germany at this time) and Switzerland (Who also wanted to remain neutral)... Are you saying that, because the inhabitants of this country are such a minority compared to the rest of the world, and help is nowhere nearby, that the world should just turn the other cheek at the annexation of this small principality against the will of it's people, and we should not do anything to deter the subjugation of it's native people? Because I disagree.

But if left, it could get the proposal deleted for rules violations.

You've got me there! I'm afraid I cannot combat your use of semantics and hypothetical situations! Woe is me!

The only punitive options the UN has left is the TPP, which cannot be involved in cases of breaking neutrality.

Well, I do believe I already gave some examples of actions that might be taken at the top of this post, so I'll spare you the redundancy. But might I inquire as to what exactly the TPP is?

Not only that, but are you telling me that no nation has ever been expeled from the UN?
You've got me there! I'm afraid I cannot combat your use of semantics and hypothetical situations! Woe is me!
But might I inquire as to what exactly the TPP is?
Resolutions cannot cause the expulsion of nations from the UN - games mechanics. The only possible cause of expulsion is breaking the rules of the UN
e.g. by submitting illegal resolutions, by UN multiing (having multiple nations in the UN).

DLE wasn't giving a hypothetical example - if you leave the title as is, the proposal will be deleted as having an illegal real life reference.

TPP stands for The Pretenama Panel, an ad hoc court which investigates possible cases of genocide. Under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, TPP has the right to intervene in nations found to have commited genocide - this intervention can include militaristic invasion. It is the closest thing we have to an International Criminal Court. TPP would not be able to investigate the case of a nation invadsing a neutral nation, until and unless there were claims of genocide being carried out.

DLE wasn't giving a hypothetical example - if you leave the title as is, the proposal will be deleted as having an illegal real life reference.

It's hypothetical because it's a working title, and I don't intend on keeping it, which I believe I stated. When I submit it as a proposal, it will likely have an explanatory name so that it may be understood quickly by those who aren't so quick... or perhaps a little to quick and impatient...

Resolutions cannot cause the expulsion of nations from the UN - games mechanics.

Hmm... You've got a good point, there. Then I shall simply strike that... also keep in mind: That wasn't the only punative action proposed. There was also the sanctions... and while the UN itself doesn't have a military, and cannot force member nations to go to war, it may encourage them to do so by offering not to get in their way, legally or otherwise, until the nation is liberated.

TPP stands for The Pretenama Panel, an ad hoc court which investigates possible cases of genocide. Under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, TPP has the right to intervene in nations found to have commited genocide - this intervention can include militaristic invasion. It is the closest thing we have to an International Criminal Court. TPP would not be able to investigate the case of a nation invadsing a neutral nation, until and unless there were claims of genocide being carried out.

In that case, then I agree. While the TPP would have no place within the proposal, it would do nicely to compliment this act, as it has a secondary purpose of preventing war crimes in neutral nations... and I'd say that genocide could easily fall under this category.

At this point, it would probably be best to create a full draft to post, simply leaving the category blank. At first blush, I'd say Human Rights, but it's hard to say with only an outline, as opposed to the actual text.

Either human rights or world peace (as fewer countries would be dragged into war, and 'neutral' countries wouldn't need to have very high defence budgets)

There is no "World Peace" category.

I know, I was thinking of Global Disarmament; I can never remember the actual names of the catagories...

The point of sanctions is not to punish all UN member nations, it is to punish the country in violation of the act... and while the nation in question may still trade with non-member nations, I'm sure that restrictions in the nearly 39,000 nations that ARE UN Members may very well be enough of an incentive to make a belligerent nation think twice for picking on a peaceful nation. Of course it's possible that a nation may be powerful enough to work around the law, but no law is perfect... Not only that, but are you telling me that no nation has ever been expeled from the UN?

Nations are, as Enn said, expelled for rules violations, not because of what resolutions say. I've probably gotten nations expelled from the UN before, and in those cases it would be because of how many rules violations I turned them in for.

As for the UN: It's actually a minority. As a nation, the majority of what limited trading I do is not with the UN, but with nonmember nations. The vast majority of storefronts are also outside UN control. To add to the mess, the UN is not actually united and you do have nations who wouldn't give a damn and would trade with them anyway.

Sp, basically, what you're telling me is, if you don't kiss the ass of a large, powerful, militaristic nation, and you don't have a huge, deadly army, and you get invaded my a neighboring nation who wants your land, marches in, rapes, tortures, and excecutes every last one of your citizens... then that's just tough, correct?

Pretty much. Your only hope is the TPP, which has itself proven in the past that there are nations that can oppose it with ease. Worse, the TPP itself is not recognized as legal by all UN members, and some of them (including myself) contain weaponry that can effectively cripple or destroy most of the nations involved before they have a chance to do anything about it. And, considering my technology level, the TPP cannot attack me and ignore the weaponry without violating RP ettiquette and, thus, nullifying the RP itself as valid. And, for that matter, when it comes to weapons, I'm more of the conservative type for my level of technology, which includes the alliances I am in.

Let's take a real-life example (Since we're in a forum), Liechenstein (And I'm using present-day figures, courtesy of BBC news, but work with me here) has 34,000 people... Germany (Modern day Germany, that is) Has close to 83 Million... Now, during this time (The Second World War, in case you haven't figured it out) they also posessed Austria (Which has just over 8 Million) The "Sudetenland" (Territory on the outer rim of the Czech Republic, which has probably about 2.5 million, including the huge city of Pilzen), and the Polish Corridor (Modern-Day Poland has about 39 Million people, and the Polish Corridor comprises roughly 1/4 of modern Poland, so we'll call that about 9 Million people)... Bringing the 3rd Reich to a grand total of nearly 103 Million native inhabitants (Remember, these territories were all German in origin)... Now, just for a point of referance, we'll say that 1 out of every 5 people is enlisted in the armies of Germany and Liechenstein, thus, the German army stands at about 20.6 Million enlisted Men & Women, and the Liechenstein army at a mere 6,800. Finally, we look at geography: Liechenstein is surrounded by Austria (Which was part of Germany at this time) and Switzerland (Who also wanted to remain neutral)... Are you saying that, because the inhabitants of this country are such a minority compared to the rest of the world, and help is nowhere nearby, that the world should just turn the other cheek at the annexation of this small principality against the will of it's people, and we should not do anything to deter the subjugation of it's native people? Because I disagree.

You can choose to attack them if you wish. However, that is on your head. In NS, you have to deal with the fact that being a UN member means you're part of the most-hated alliance in NS and your only protection as a UN member is viewed as a joke.

Basically, survival is simple: Either become the biggest bastard in the land, or find the biggest bastard in the land and become his best friend.

You've got me there! I'm afraid I cannot combat your use of semantics and hypothetical situations! Woe is me!

I have yet to present hypotheticals. The title is not hypothetical unless we are talking about what title you will give it, as at this time the title is what you have put down. Also, my correction on the use of "resolution" is to prevent confusion among new people who come onto the forum. A resolution is a proposal that gets enough endorsements to go before the UN. The rest are obvious, so I won't waste my time or yours with the explanation.

Well, I do believe I already gave some examples of actions that might be taken at the top of this post, so I'll spare you the redundancy. But might I inquire as to what exactly the TPP is?

This has been already answered, so I won't waste space answering it again.

Pretty much. Your only hope is the TPP

Or IGNORE cannons.

IGNORE cannons against an invasion of your nation that are used just because you are being invaded is pretty much poor ettiquette.

IGNORE cannons against an invasion of your nation that are used just because you are being invaded is pretty much poor ettiquette.
OOC: Unless, of course, you haven't consented to the RP. This shouldn't need stating. Sadly, however, it does.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, DLE, but I was under the impression that IGNORE Cannon are automatically active, until and unless a person consents to an RP.

That's the oldest rule, but no longer particularly viable. This is due to IGNORE spamming practiced by certain posters in the past, which actually went before the mods on several occasions for questions about whether it's a form of rules breaking or should be limited. That's why it's since become mostly considered to be bad ettiquette.

Ironically, one of the people who led to that change of viewpoints was banned for multiple rules violations.

The proposal I am preparing to submit is called "The Luxembourg Act"... basically, this proposal, if made a resolution, would grant the inalienable right of any sovereign state being guaranteed the right to remain completely neutral during any armed conflict. The act goes on to explain when a country is not granted that right (eg, if a country takes action to harm another country, economically, militarily, or otherwise, then that country must face the wrath of the country it crossed, and any allies who wish to help it), and the penal code that the UN would be obligated to enforce, should anyone violate this act.

So, I declare my neutrality during a war, I no longer have the ability to jump in to the war, without fear of reprisal from the UN. I cannot think of a better way to end the universe than this.

OOC: Umm....Dude...History for you. During WWII, the United States, originally, stated their neutrality. Note that we ultimately ended up in the war. And....if we hadn't gone to war.....the Axis powers would have won Wordl War II. The English couldn't do it alone. I'll grant that we were provoked by the Japanese, but we still fought. History also show evidence that FDR was readying the US for war even without Pearl Harbor. It was only a matter of time.

If a war happens in my region, I'll likely stay neutral as long as possible. However, I am no going to let the UN tell me I have to stay completely neutral for a whole war.

At any rate, my question is, quite simply, what category should this act fall under? My common sense tells me that "International Security" would be the most appropriate category, however, the description which states that it would entail the "Increase of military and/or police budgets" leaves me to think that this is not the case. Upon reviewing the descriptions of each category, "Human Rights" seems to fit the best... But while this is a right in question, and humans are affected by it, something still doesn't seem quite right. To me, "Human Rights" seems like it would adress things such as the issue of Gay Marriage, UN peacekeepers raping babies in Somalia, the enforcements of racial quotas, or anything to that effect.

I think the category is the round file.

The UN would NOT be telling you that YOU have to honor your declaration of neutrality... In fact, it states that if you take military action, or realistically provoke a belligerent, that you no longer have the right to be a neutral nation, and that you're basically fair game, should the belligerent in question choose to crush you like a bug.

The UN has no military, why would anyone outside the UN care what they think?

We declare our neutrality by not getting involved. It seems to work. Also stimulates our arms sales by selling to both sides. You'd be amazed at the war supplies that never arrive... :D

A note on my post about IGNORE cannons: That is not an actual moderator ruling, but a trend I noticed in II that was spurred on by IGNORE spamming by certain members, both those who used it and those who were frustrated by it. There is currently a topic in the Moderation forum on this that includes a shortlist of links on the subject.