NationStates Jolt Archive


Ten Most Wanted (to be repealed)

Krioval
09-06-2005, 05:49
After careful thought and consideration, the nation of Krioval has decided to summarize some of its thoughts on some of the unnecessary, restrictive, and just plain confusing legislation currently on the books in UN members. To our surprise, we find that a good number of earlier resolutions seem to be either:

Too limited - Why single out evolution or dolphins specifically?

Unnecessarily restrictive - Do my courts really need to be told which cases to accept?

Badly worded - The ability to string together a sentence does not a solid resolution make. Lacking this ability simply hurts more.

WTF?!-esque - Either they have impacts that are not obvious from the text or are virtually indecipherable for either intent or action.

Illegal - speaks for itself.

Thus, I present, in descending order of disdain, the "top" ten resolutions that I feel must go:

Humanitarian Intervention

Congratulations! Not only does this particular law allow the UN to organize troops under its banner, but they can also march against nations outside the UN! Oh, wait. That's illegal. To add to this grevious flaw, there is also the issue that this resolution never quite nails down what it deals with. Is it a "genocide only" resolution, or do "tyranny" and "extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale" grant even further power to a panel whose original intent was to bring genocidal criminals to justice? Nobody knows for sure. This makes Humanitarian Intervention our top priority for a repeal effort.

NOTE: The last proposal to deal with this repeal was written by me, and received 90 delegate approvals. A lack of time and a flood of resolutions for vote have delayed a resumption in this effort, but it will continue.

National Systems of Tax

Since when do we need to pay out good money to prevent proposals that are already considered illegal? Further, what is it with the sanctimonious preaching that passes for legislative language in NSoT? It manages to slam capitalists, socialists, and democratic governments all at the same time. It unnecessarily restricts both the scope of one's national sovereignty and UN authority at the same time, which has to be a first. Let's make it a last, or better yet, a historical curiosity.

Rights of Minorities and Women

Not only is this badly written, but there are at least four resolutions that deal with all the important aspects (like human rights), while some of it is downright silly. I mean, it's fine if one wants to believe that all thoughts are equivalent, but don't go crying when Krioval's thought to annex your country by force doesn't make you giddy with exultation. In fact, if I believe that this resolution is crap, doesn't that set up a paradoxical conflict within the text of the resolution itself? Let's hope it disappears when the paradox resolves.

DVD Region Removal

Fine! We get it! You want region-free DVDs. I can accept how that might be a priority for some, but dear Gods above! The wording of this resolution makes my head swim (and not in a good way), and has been the source of confusion for several people who are unfamiliar with DVD regions in the first place. Maybe we could actually decide on a replacement (or not) if this monstrosity was lifted first.

Common Sense Act II

As I said in my examples section, do my courts really need to be told which cases to dismiss? Not only is this resolution vague, but it potentially eliminates one's right to obtain restitution for injuries sustained due to manufacturing defects - who proves that the injury was due to negligence unless it can be brought to court? Common sense dictates a repeal of this resolution.

Legalize Euthanasia

Krioval belives in legalizing euthanasia, but the combination of national sovereignty arguments coupled with the horrifying layout and wording of the current resolution has finally tipped the balance in the repeal direction, earning this one the number six spot on the list. Really, we can do better that what we've got.

Protect Historical Sites

And how are we going to do that? By talking about it? If this is really a UN priority, let's pass something with some power behind it. Otherwise, let's kill this, cremate it, and therefore not have to worry about it becoming historical.

World Heritage List

Krioval would like to retain some level of control over sites in Krioval, thank you very much. Besides, not all sites of interest are susceptible to logging, which is the focus of this resolution.

Right to Learn About Evolution

Krioval likes evolution - our citizens are the beneficiaries of millions of years of it, after all, but why not just pass a resolution that promotes the de-politicization of science in the classroom. Why restrict it to evolution in particular?

Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning

This is another poorly written environmental resolution (there are so many it's tough to keep track). Its cardinal sins are forcing cities to set up three committees to deal with issues regarding waste dumping, setting absolute penalties for crimes that may be meaningless in several UN states, and lying about a tax directly in the body of the resolution. It needs to be dumped.


We hope you have enjoyed your trip through "Resolutions Krioval Hates"-Land, and we would like to remind our more cynical colleagues that the number of resolutions Krioval would consider "crappy" is actually more than ten, but ten is a nice round number, so we stop there. Have a nice day.
Roathin
09-06-2005, 07:50
Greetings.

We of Roathin totally sympathize. In related vein, would Krioval consider endorsement of our current proposal 'Limits to Sovereignty'? It suffers from none of the flaws you have so eloquently described, and even encourages free trade and technological development.
Safalra
09-06-2005, 10:33
Too limited - Why single out evolution or dolphins specifically?
Sometimes it is necessary to limit the scope of a resolution to ease its passage. People like dolphins, but aren't so fussed about sharks.

As a demonstration of how widening the scope of a resolution in the interests of logical consistency would cause it to fail, consider my resolution 'Female Genital Mutilation'. A number of nations protested that it didn't discourage or ban male circumcision, and eventually a small coalition made a proposal whose text was an exact copy of mine with all occurances of 'female' replaced by 'male'. My resolution passed by the largest majority in history, whereas theirs failed to reach quorum. Because people perceive male circumcision as safe, they weren't willing to back that resolution. Given how many people vote without reading the forums (that is, vote based on their preconceptions), I wasn't willing to let my resolution fail by widening the scope.
Enn
09-06-2005, 12:11
Let's see this list.

Humanitarian Intervention - I'm indifferent to this. TPP hasn't yet had much of chance to do anything, but when it tried military force, it failed disasterously. I'll wait before I make up my mind over this.

National Systems of Tax - I don't like this, don't really see the point, but mainly I'm just indifferent to it.

Rights of Minorities and Women - I detest this, and am planning a repeal myself.

DVD Region Removal - meh. No point getting excited.

Common Sense Act II - I'd need to see an actual repeal text before I support.

Legalise Euthanasia - appallingly written, but I don't think that's enough to qualify for repeal status. And I'm not really swayed by the national sovereignty side either.

Protect Historical Sites - See my note for Common Sense Act II

World Heritage List - ditto

Evolution - I'm not a fan of this resolution, but I'd need to see the full argument before I supported.

Stop Dumping Start Cleaning - ditto.
Hirota
09-06-2005, 12:54
I think the majority of those resolutions that are dispised are generally badly written, but if I was going to repeal them, I'd want to put a better resolution in their place.

I'd also add abortion rights to that list. It's a worthy cause, but it's awfully written. I could write a better proposal easily. It's repealling that is the problem.
Darkumbria
09-06-2005, 15:24
I completely agree with the repeal of all worthless resolutions. As I have stated before, the region of Northwind and the country od Darkumbria are against the passing of senseless, useless, nationalistic resolutions.

It is my ideal that all nationalistic resolutions be voted down as being so.

My definition of a nationalistic resolution:
Any resolution that attempts to deal with some national issue, i.e. Holy Days, Dolphin rights, and any other such nonsense. This type of resolution, takes the power of government out of the hands of the nation and puts it, squarely, in the hands of the UN. The UN should not, and MUST NOT, have power of ANY nation in these regards. The purpose of the UN is to deal with international issues, border issues, terrorism, inter regional issues, not holy days.
Western Saxonia
09-06-2005, 15:31
National Systems of Tax

Since when do we need to pay out good money to prevent proposals that are already considered illegal? Further, what is it with the sanctimonious preaching that passes for legislative language in NSoT? It manages to slam capitalists, socialists, and democratic governments all at the same time. It unnecessarily restricts both the scope of one's national sovereignty and UN authority at the same time, which has to be a first. Let's make it a last, or better yet, a historical curiosity.


FYI, I put a draft repeal up for this one a while ago (Link here.) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423568) , but only one person cared to post comments on rewording it. I guess I should repost it here:

The United Nations,

RECALLS the recent passage of “National Systems of Tax” on May 31, 2005,

RECOGNIZING the original humanitarian intent of the resolution,

ALSO RECOGNIZING the significant opposition to the resolution, on the grounds that the Resolution:
- PREVENTS, if strictly interpreted, future UN legislation from being passed on the matter of Taxation, a violation of the UN Proposal Rule against changing Game Mechanics.
- ATTEMPTS to indirectly impose progressive tax systems upon member nations, even if some nations would be ideologically opposed to such restrictions.
- CONTRADICTS its fourth clause by allowing for possible revocation of the claimed “individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax” by permitting the UN to “reserve” said right. (#105, Final paragraph)

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #105, “National Systems of Tax” for the above reasons.

DemonLordEnigma correctly noted that expanding the fourth reason (CONTRADICTS clause) would be in order. I don't know if it's too soon to submit this, but if not, I guarantee that this will be submitted to the delegates by the end of this week.
Hirota
09-06-2005, 15:33
I don't know if it's too soon to submit this, but if not, I guarantee that this will be submitted to the delegates by the end of this week.I think it is too early to start a serious repeal effort - you will be effectively asking member states to admit they made an error in judgement when the passed this only days ago.
Sparren
09-06-2005, 21:12
The nation of Sparren wholeheartedly agrees with this list, and believes there are more proposals that could be repealed than just these ten. As Sparren is a capitalist and libertarian nation, it seems obvious to the citizens of Sparren that many of these proposals are ridiculously narrow.

Understood, the UN is less open-minded about these things; however, it is unrealistic to have pages and pages of very similar proposals which all involve the adding of power to the government and the restriction of personal freedom.
Western Saxonia
09-06-2005, 23:41
I think it is too early to start a serious repeal effort - you will be effectively asking member states to admit they made an error in judgement when the passed this only days ago.
I figured as much. Oh well. I'll let this sit around for a bit, but if anyone would like to help promote this and gain support over the next month, I'd certainly appreciate it. I doubt a repeal proposal from a country only a month old would be too well recieved.
Holyboy and the 666s
10-06-2005, 00:13
Can we repeal the DVD act? I've read it over and over again and still have NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO idea what it does. Enlighten if possible, please :S
Assassin-As-Assassin
10-06-2005, 00:18
How interesting. We have several Kriovian government officials on our hit list.
One Starr
10-06-2005, 03:18
To Assassin-As-Assassin -Sir, I strongly suggest that your threat be reconsidered. Threatening another nations officials for presumeabily disagreeing with you is simply bad form at the least and hazardous to the future of your nation some what more so.

I don't post much, I lurk, but I have to agree with Krioval. These are the ten most egregious. I would like to see all of them repealed.
Krioval
10-06-2005, 03:56
How interesting. We have several Kriovian government officials on our hit list.

It is good to know that Kriovalian politics are of such extreme interest to others that they inspire such passionate responses. However, this is a place to discuss the merits of the resolutions I have named, as well as to stimulate discussion on the current status of the UN with regard to unnecessary resolutions.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica
Assassin-As-Assassin
10-06-2005, 10:17
We do not know whether or not it is for political reasons that our client has hired us. Neither do we care.

We are not a member of the United Nations but we would be most interested to see the repeal of Humanitarian Intervention. We have already received a telegram warning us of the consequences of our committing genocide. The UN should have no interest in the running of our country, whether we are committing genocide or not. Repeal this intrusive law and let us do as we wish.
Safalra
10-06-2005, 11:25
My definition of a nationalistic resolution:
Any resolution that attempts to deal with some national issue, i.e. Holy Days, Dolphin rights,
Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law
(Emphasis added.) Surely any law applying to international waters is not a national issue?
Quadlia
10-06-2005, 18:05
(Emphasis added.) Surely any law applying to international waters is not a national issue?Not necessarily. If the resolution banned all fishing/hunting/trapping/etc-ing in extra-territorial waters, then it would not be a national issue. However, the specific protection of dolphins is due to the preference of the author nation. If Quadlia were to propose that tuna fishing be banned because we find tuna to be cuddly, that would be forcing a national issue upon an international body.


Quadlia
Goobergunchia
11-06-2005, 22:03
Common Sense Act II - I'd need to see an actual repeal text before I support.

I wrote the following back in September. It went absolutely nowhere given that I was too lazy to do any campaigning for it.

In my capacity as the UN Ambassador from Bawlmer, I hereby do move that the thirtieth resolution adopted by this body (Common Sense Act II) be struck out and rendered null and void.

This resolution unfairly restricts a citizen's right to sue businesses and others.

Provision one does not make allowances for time and place, and may permit unlawfully hot (such as those at boiling point that would severely burn somebody upon ingestion) beverages to be sold.

Provision three prevents a person from suing a company for selling harmful producs for consumption, even if the company did not tell the whole truth about its products.

Provisions two and four are marginally acceptable (if possibly outside of the scope of the United Nations), but are vague (especially provision two).

Michael Evif, UN Ambassador for Bawlmer
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359803

As an interesting historical footnote, the first major case of a repeal being struck down as against the rules was Tisonica's proposal to repeal Common Sense Act II.