NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft Proposal: repealing resolution 2

07-06-2005, 17:57
This proposal is to repeal resolution 2, which states that scientists have the right to research whatever they want, in any nation they want, and however they want.

Dashir proposes that a strict procedure must be followed in order for scientists to conduct research. It is as follows:

1) The Scientists must file a request for research commencement with the nation that they wish to conduct research within (hereby referred to as "The Nation"). This request must include a hypothesis (of some sort), the reason for chosing The Nation, and possible benefits for the nation as a result of the research.

2) While within The Nation's borders, the scientists must obey all the laws of the nation, as well as be held accountable for any consequences that the research may have. Also, if The Nation requests that the Scientists leave, then the Scientists must comply.

3) All the data produced from said research must be published in all nations within the UN and/or The Nation itself. It must be printed in every language of the abovementioned nations, and be readily available to the public.

4) Upon departure from The Nation, the Scientists must thank The Nation for allowing them to perform their research, apoligize for any inconveniences, and mention AT LEAST one POSITIVE aspect that the Scientists experienced during their stay.

We, the people of Dashir, wish to promote a cooperative and symbiotic relationship between Scientists and Nations. We feel that the only way to move forward in the world is through science, however, this cannot be at the expense of the Nation's rights. We hope that proper procedure, as well as proper etiquette will help to alleviate the burden that has been placed on nations in the past.
07-06-2005, 19:26

We believe that this proposal transgresses upon fundamental rights and the guidelines established and made binding by several other resolutions.


2: holds scientists accountable for events which they may have no way of predicting, and essentially does not allow a member state of the NSUN to not hold them accountable, as should be an obvious option.

3: this is probably unacceptable; with the huge number of nations currently in the NSUN and the fact that some do not even rely on the medium of print, it is at the very least extremely unwieldy and at the worst, impossible.

4: this impinges severely on the right of free speech and also possibly on moral decency; if it were not possible to mention a positive aspect (due to lack thereof), then these scientists would be forced to lie or at the very least employ contortionate exposition and/or circumlocution to adhere to the last clause.
07-06-2005, 21:06
So, in effect, you are mixing a proposal and a repeal? For shame!
Texan Hotrodders
07-06-2005, 21:12
I wouldn't mind seeing #2 repealed, but your intended replacement isn't so hot, in my opinion. It goes beyond the "nation's rights," which I support, and tries to lay out guidelines for an agreement that should be decided on between the scientist and the host nation and may not be up to the nation at all. Some nations have no government, and private industry would be the one making the decision of whether to allow the scientist to use their facilities.
08-06-2005, 00:38
YOu all got me there, so I am willing to make necessary changes.

While I agree, there are some unforseeable results in some research that isn't necessarily the scientists fault. Which is why a trial would be held (though I forgot to mention that). I feel that a trial by peers could solve the problem with being held responsible. It would have to be excessive, anyway. Like unleashing a plague, or killing all the crops. Accidentally causing hearing loss to three test subjects and blowing up a city block are two very different things.

I strongly disagree with anyone who would wish to disagree with filing a request. True, in some cases a nation is run by an industry. Then as the industry, since they RUN the nation. My whole purpose, in reality, for writing this repeal/proposal, is that I don't want a scientist running around my nation without my approval. I don't want them experimenting on my national animal, then wiping them out by accident.

The thank you note, while infringing on "rights," will lead to better relations between scientists and nations. If the host nation receives a thank you telegram, they will be more likely to be a host nation for more research. And who says that the scientist has to tell the truth. I said AT LEAST one POSITIVE. I never said TRUE. It is the thought that counts.
08-06-2005, 17:44
This proposal is to repeal resolution 2, which states that scientists have the right to research whatever they want, in any nation they want, and however they want.

Sorry, you fell at the first hurdle. That resolution does precisely none of this. Here's the text, with the bits that aren't pointless bolded:

Scientific Freedom

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Genius

Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase. Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius: Chris Meyers The Aboolot Protector of Genius Defender of Freedom Friend of the Free Realms

Votes For: 3075

Votes Against: 1336

Implemented: Thu Dec 26 2002

Read that bold sentence carefully. Nowhere does it require you to grant scientific freedom. All it says is that scientific freedom for peaceful and responsible scientists would be a good thing for technological progress and trade. It's an endorsement of the concept, not an enforcement.