NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the Biological Weapons Ban proposal is facing imminent deletion with the passage of the UNSA unless I can successfully make a case for its continued legality and the clock is ticking it was suggested I raise the issue here to make sure it received attention in time without being lost in the clutter of the discussion of the UNSA issues.

(Sorry for the length, really)

There's actually two seperate arguments I think can be made for the legality of the proposal as it stands. The first is fairly simple, the second is somewhat similar to one presented earlier, but it's been elaborated on... considerably.

1. The preamble of the biological weapons ban proposal already incorporates two seperate statements (the first and the third clauses) regarding the threat to a nations safety and security that Biological Weapons present due to their unpredictability. Obviously declaring that they are an "unacceptable risk" (direct quote, but stressing that "unacceptable" part) to your nation precludes them from being considered necessary to the defense of your nation... and thus the proposal would not be in conflict with the UNSA.

2. I'm still very much concerned about what it means if it is ruled that by virtue of the UNSA saying we can't ban "necessary" weapons to defense ALL weapons immediately become unbannable unless we specifically establish that they're considered unnecessary in the process of the ban. This seems to be going well beyond the requirements of what is contained in the UNSA and conferring a default status of "necessary" on every single weapon that doesn't have legislation which establishes otherwise. Prior to this point in time I believe the most that could be said was that as far as the UN was concerned all weapons were considered "permitted" which didn't have legislation establishing otherwise. I think that lacking the incorporation of any criteria whatsoever for judging the necessity of a weapon, the UNSA does nothing to alter this state of affairs and in the process confer this burden of proof of "unnecessity" upon the UN.

It was earlier stated by Hack that the necessary or unnecessary state of any weapon (at least any weapon which lacked legislation already establishing that it was one or the other) would not be evident following the passage of the UNSA. I would argue that if the UNSA does not make it evident that a weapon is necessary then the UNSA should not be able to make a proposal for the ban of that weapon illegal whether that ban explicitly applies the label of "unnecessary" to that weapon or not... as the UNSA only reserves the right to construct and utilize weapons which are necessary to defense. Not which might be necessary, or which we don't know are necessary or not... which are necessary. That the UNSA did not incorporate criteria for making this judgement is a shortcoming in the UNSA, not an excuse to give ALL weapon systems the benefit of the doubt on the matter and say that the UNSA applies to every single one of them pending any legislation to the contrary.

To possibly simplify that last point, let's say a proposal passed which reserved the right for all UN nations to have any... art... that they want (The "Freedom Of Expression Act"). But it doesn't do anything to say what counts as art.

One way to go from there is to say "look, the proposal didn't provide any criteria for what constitutes art so it's not going to effect any future proposals trying to illegalize anything unless such a proposal comes right out and says it wants to make "art" illegal, or make something illegal which other legislation establishes is art".

The other way to go is to say "look, the proposal didn't provide any criteria for what constitutes art so henceforth any proposal attempting to illegalize anything has to include the qualifier that "this isn't considered art" in it.

I think the latter approach is being a little too kind to the proposal that didn't bother to define it's terms, and as I see it requiring any and all future weapons ban proposals to incorporate the qualifier "this weapon isn't considered necessary for defense" in them just because the UNSA neglected to include any criteria for judging whether a weapon is necessary or not is doing the same thing. Weapons ban proposals should not be considered to be contradicting the UNSA unless they attempt to ban a weapon the UNSA explicitly protects... and if the UNSA fails to do that for any given weapons system that is the fault of the UNSA.

If either (or both) of these arguments is accepted then confirmation that the biological weapons ban proposal will not be deleted upon the passage of the UNSA would be greatly appreciated.

Can you repost the sections of your proposal (that reached quorum) here that apply to your point #1 and the sections of the United Nations Security Act that others have suggested conflict.

Can you repost the sections of your proposal (that reached quorum) here that apply to your point #1 and the sections of the United Nations Security Act that others have suggested conflict.

From the Biological Weapons Ban preamble:

NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.

The first and third clauses lay out fairly clearly the position of the ban proposal regarding biological weapons. I don't think that position is reconcileable in any way with the idea that the weapons are considered "necessary" to defend a nation from attack.

From the UNSA:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

What criteria a weapon has to meet to be considered "necessary to defend their nation" is never elaborated on.

Thank you. Though I'm not a moderator, I think you've stated your point well and would agree with you that your resolution has legal standing to remain in the UN resolution queue, as it will not conflict with the United Nations Security Act, should it pass.

Essentially what you've done is addressed what the UN Security Act calls upon Global Dissarmament resolutions to do ... include a justification in the text for why a weapon is a risk.

Coulda sworn I had already ruled on this. And I'm thrilled that you decided to go over my head.

As written, the Proposal simply states that biological weapons are highly dangerous and destructive, not that they are unnecessary for the defence of a nation.

Coulda sworn I had already ruled on this. And I'm thrilled that you decided to go over my head.

There was never a ruling on argument 1 and argument 2 has been considerably elaborated on since you originally commented on the subject. And it was my understanding that you were a game mod and thus requesting the attention of the game mods was going to you and the other game mods, not going over your head. If I misinterpreted the 'chain of command' involved here my apologies.

As written, the Proposal simply states that biological weapons are highly dangerous and destructive, not that they are unnecessary for the defence of a nation.

Actually, as pointed out it states that they present an unacceptable risk to the security of ALL nations, a statement which necessarily includes any nations possessing them and which goes quite beyond calling them simply "highly dangerous and destructive".

I see no way to argue that that statement can be made and it still be simultaneously maintained that the proposal leaves open any possibility whatsoever for it to consider the weapons to be necessary for defense.

And also, the second point has never been clarified and I think it's rather important. If a proposal reserves the right for a nation to posess "something" without ever suitably defining what constitutes that "something" is it UN policy to declare that the burden thereafter lies on all future restrictive proposals to clarify that whatever they are pertaining to is NOT that "something"?

If the hypothetical "Freedom of expression" proposal was passed containing language IDENTICAL to the UNSA in its active clause but substituting "art" for "weapons necessary for defense" with no further defining criteria to establish what was considered to BE art would the UN require all future proposals attempting to illegalize something to incorporate the phrase "and by the way, this thing we're illegalizing is not considered art" just because the original proposal didn't define it's own terms so every future proposal has to negatively define them on it's behalf? After all, some might argue hacking is an art form... so computer crimes legislation would have to have it. Some would consider hand to hand combat an artform... etc, etc... you could go on for quite some time.

In my opinion Reformentia, you and others are looking at the UNSA the wrong way.



DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

That is the key phrase. The biological weapons has not past. It is under consideration. The UNSA allows for exceptions where the UN has already made a decision.

The UN has not made a decision on a suitable biological weapons ban, therefore passage of the UNSA will made the proposed resolution illegal.

Wolfish

Coulda sworn I had already ruled on this. And I'm thrilled that you decided to go over my head.

As written, the Proposal simply states that biological weapons are highly dangerous and destructive, not that they are unnecessary for the defence of a nation.

What it sounds like you are suggesting by your ruling, which I think is wrong, is that all future Global Disarmament resolutions must at least use the _word_ or phrase that directly declares a weapon as being unnecessary for the defense of a nation.

The problem here is that if this is true, due to the pending adoption of the United Nations Security Act, then that resolution is illegal, as it is mandating the actual language of future UN resolutions. It would be setting a *game* required that every future resolution include something like:

CONVINCED that Weapon X is not necessary to the defense of any nation;

Many times the game moderators have agreed that resolutions can't have an impact on game mechanics nor forum activites, and yet it now seems as if a proposal that has reached quorum *prior* to a resolution that is mandating fairly specific text *somewhere* in future proposals is being used as an excuse to bump another resolution.

Personally I think the big mistake here is what Frisbeeteria pointed out some time ago with respect to the United Nations Security Act, when he said that he felt it was illegal, but could be made legal by removing just a few words (the red are the words I think should be removed):

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right

While I'm aware Frisbeeteria's opinion was considered (in fact it was requested) and debated by the game mods at that time, it seems to me that a week later we are really seeing a resolution mandate the language on other resolutions. I think this is an extremely dangerous precedent to establish -- which is why I am here disagreeing with your opinion.

This is hardly going over somebody's head nor a personal issue! And I don't think it is fair to make it out as such, *unless* there already was a moderation forum discussion on this subject??? (I could have missed it, but I didn't see one.)

This is a situtation where a player used a repeal to remove a resolution on bio-weapons that he wanted to IMPROVE because we have been told that to improve resolutions we must go through a two-step process:

1. remove the old resolution,
2. propose new one.

There was nothing illegal with the proposal when it was submitted into the proposal queue, and as of this moment there is nothing illegal with it.

The problem is another moderation decision made in the past week *may* conflict with it, should the current resolution pass today (which is likely given that there are less than a few hours left on the vote IIRC).

Essentially this is an appeal, and in cases where player(s) disagree with an opinion, I honestly believe that bringing attention to the item in the moderation forum is really an appropriate step.

While I'm aware Frisbeeteria's opinion was considered (in fact it was requested) and debated by the game mods at that time, it seems to me that a week later we are really seeing a resolution mandate the language on other resolutions. I think this is an extremely dangerous precedent to establish -- which is why I am here disagreeing with your opinion.

The UNSA does not mandate the language on other resolutions. The only reason such a change to the language is required is because of the rule against contradiction.

This is similar to the case of all resolutions. For example, in the case of "Right to Self-Protection" one could use the Moral Decency category to ban the use of aikido as a method of self-protection if you were careful to state that aikido does not constitute "reasonable force".

The UNSA does not mandate the language on other resolutions. The only reason such a change to the language is required is because of the rule against contradiction.

The current proposal does not contradict the UNSA. The UNSA reserves only the right to construct and utilize weapons which are necessary to defend a nation. Show me where the UNSA provides any criteria by which biological weapons could be so classified?

If you can show me where the current bioweapons proposal is suggesting banning a weapon that fits ANY criteria that describe weapons which are protected by the UNSA then you have a contradiction.

I have yet to see anyone do any such thing... largely because the UNSA didn't bother to provide any such criteria.

And I must repeat my question. If a proposal fails to properly define what it is that it is prohibiting will the UN require that the burden then falls on ALL future proposals to provide that definition FOR that first proposal that lacked it so that those future proposals can then say "and now that we've gone and defined what that previous proposal was talking about we can now say we definitely aren't contradicting it"?

I don't see that as being the reasonable approach here.

The UNSA does not mandate the language on other resolutions. The only reason such a change to the language is required is because of the rule against contradiction.

If it is true that the United Nations Security Act doesn't mandate language, then all that has to happen as a resolution author just as to *say* that they feel their resolution bans a weapon that is not necessary to national defense, and they aren't contradicting the United Nations Security Act. Problem solved.

Otherwise, the United Nations Security resolution has included a loophole that requires other NationStates resolutions to qualify and/or address the necessity of weapons to be banned.


In this case I honestly think Reformentia has pointed to a preamble clause in his proposal that illustrates that he honestly believes bio-weapons are not necessary.


Bear in mind that the old Rights and Duties resolution was written in a way to sound like it did something, but by having some statements that encouraged sovereignty and other statements that recognized the way the UN works in NationStates, it was just window dressing. It did not restrict game mechanics. If the United Nations Security Act is restricting other resolutions, it has gone further than what the Rights and Duties resolution has done. Why haven't we seen others challenge nearly every other resolution on the grounds that it violates sovereignty as described in Rights and Duties? I think the answer is that Frisbeeteria wrote that resolution in a way that it also allowed for players to still submit resolutions ... but it is sounding increasingly as if the United Nations Security Act is a game rule and not just a standard one-shot NationStates UN resolution.

Show me where the UNSA provides any criteria by which biological weapons could be so classified?You have the burden of proof, not the UNSA.


The problem here is that if this is true, due to the pending adoption of the United Nations Security Act, then that resolution is illegal, as it is mandating the actual language of future UN resolutions. It would be setting a *game* required that every future resolution include something like:Stuff and nonsense. Every UN Resolution forbids and/or mandates certain words in the bodies of future Proposals.

You have the burden of proof, not the UNSA.

Stuff and nonsense. Every UN Resolution forbids and/or mandates certain words in the bodies of future Proposals.

Care to explain how he hasn't provided that burden of proof?


If the United Nations Security Act can restict an ENTIRE category of future NationStates UN proposals by using extremely vague language:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack

Then the same standard should apply to other NationStates proposals ... and in this case, I honestly feel that Reformentia has provided as detailed an explanation as the United Nations Security Act did.

My issue isn't really with the United Nations Security Act, but rather the BROAD sweeping generalization being used to justify deletion of a large host of resolutions because it simply says "are necessary to defend their nation from attack".

In effect, a few moderators are making a judgement call on what is or isn't "necessary", without allowing UN members to debate and vote on the issue on a case-by-case basis.

The example that applies here is there are now *two* proposals that have reached quorum: restricting bio-weapons and restricting bayonets that you are essentially saying we, UN players, aren't allowed to decide if we consider them necessary to our self-defense or not.

I STRONGLY feel that if a proposal is legal under the current UN rules, the only additional requirement that the vague United Nations Security Act adds is that new proposals need to basically say:

"Dude, these are dangerous and unnecessary to self-defense!"

If a proponent can point to a variation on that theme (which Reformentia has done), then there is no conflict.

You have the burden of proof, not the UNSA.

I'm sorry... what burden of proof? I've already argued why they should be banned in the proposal but I can't possibly be required to provide any proof respective to the UNSA because the UNSA doesn't have anything for me to submit proof AGAINST. That is an entirely serious question... what PROOF of "unnecessity" could I possibly be required to provide according to the terms of the UNSA?

There would be a burden of proof if the UNSA had incorporated criteria to judge whether a weapon was necessary or not, because then I would have to prove the weapons I was seeking to ban didn't fit those criteria... but there ARE NONE. You're just saying to stick in "oh, and these weapons are unnecessary to defense" and *poof*, the proposal somehow immediately becomes legal.

You said the passage of a weapons ban couldn't simply establish the unnecessity of a weapon by an ex post facto appeal to authority but that is exactly what that is.

"It's legal to propose to ban the weapon because the weapon it's banning is unnecessary, and the weapon it's banning is unnecessary because it says so right there in the ban proposal which... as soon as it passes and becomes a resolution, will establish that the weapon is unnecessary which makes the proposal legal!"

It doesn't work. If a ban proposal incorporating arguments for why a ban is warranted isn't allowed to be considered it's own establishment of the weapon being unnecessary than sticking the word "unnecessary" in it doesn't change anything. It's just plain silly to be perfectly frank. If the UNSA or some other peice of legislation didn't somehow establish that the weapon in question was necessary then it cannot be argued that it made a ban of that weapon illegal when it ONLY made illegal the ban of necessary weapons!

You have the burden of proof, not the UNSA.


So - because of the passage of the UNSA, the default status for all weapon types is now "necessary"?

So - because of the passage of the UNSA, the default status for all weapon types is now "necessary"?

As I see it that's the only way that the UNSA as it is stated could be said to make weapons ban proposals illegal on it's own.

I mean, the UNSA is quite clear that what it makes illegal is banning weapons necessary to defense. A proposal comes up to ban some random weapon "X". It is ruled that a ban of weapon "X" is illegal per the UNSA... therefore that ruling must incorporate the judgement that weapon "X" at that time enjoyed the status of "necessary to defense" since that's the one and only grounds upon which the UNSA makes such a proposal illegal.

Except the grounds for declaring weapon "X" "necessary for defense" has thus far been nowhere to be found in any UN legislation. It certainly isn't in the UNSA. And that is what has been causing me such a very large problem with this whole situation.

And I'll just stop there before I get going on all the problems I have with the idea that simply inserting the claim that the weapon isn't necessary into the proposal somehow circumvents this issue since I've already said quite a bit about that in my last post...

While the proposal has now been deleted, I'd like a response to my question

I'm curious.

Does this mean that proposals will be held to rules set not only by passed resolutions, but also those which are yet to pass? Reformetia's proposal was submitted well before UNSA was passed. How could Reformetia have been expected to predict what the outcome of UNSA would be?

Be that as it may, I would like to request that should Reformetia's proposal be ruled illegal under laws that did not exist when it wa submitted, then Reformetia not be given a warning.

Does this mean that proposals will be held to rules set not only by passed resolutions, but also those which are yet to pass? Reformetia's proposal was submitted well before UNSA was passed. How could Reformetia have been expected to predict what the outcome of UNSA would be?He couldn't, and isn't, which is why he wasn't warned for his Proposal. However, with the passage of UNSA, all Proposals must heed what it says. Since Bio didn't it was deleted.

Look at it this way:

A Proposal legalizing all abortions and one outlawing all abortions are in the list. The one legalizing goes up to vote first, while the other waits in queue. Now, if the one legalizing passes, do you honestly expect the one outlawing to be allowed to hit the floor for vote?

Ok... a new revised proposal will be going into the list tomorrow. In the meantime however I am still unable to make sense out of the mechanics of this ruling so I'd appreciate some answers to some questions that I'm not at all clear on to straighten all this out for future reference.

1. Does this statement in the proposal:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

...make illegal the banning of anything BESIDES "weapons that are necessary to defend a nation from attack"? If so, in what manner does it accomplish this?

2. Are biological weapons currently considered by the UN to be "weapons that are necessary to defend a nation from attack"? If yes, on what grounds?

More questions to follow depending on the answers to these.

1. Does this statement in the proposal:



...make illegal the banning of anything BESIDES "weapons that are necessary to defend a nation from attack"? If so, in what manner does it accomplish this?


And if it doesn't - does that mean that all weapons are necessary by default until proven otherwise?

You're just saying to stick in "oh, and these weapons are unnecessary to defense" and *poof*, the proposal somehow immediately becomes legal.

As far as I know, that's exactly right. Just stick that statement in there (maybe slightly reworded) and you're good to go. Easy breezy beautiful.

I'm curious.

Does this mean that proposals will be held to rules set not only by passed resolutions, but also those which are yet to pass? Reformetia's proposal was submitted well before UNSA was passed. How could Reformetia have been expected to predict what the outcome of UNSA would be?

Be that as it may, I would like to request that should Reformetia's proposal be ruled illegal under laws that did not exist when it wa submitted, then Reformetia not be given a warning.

This is a great question, because there are now two conflicting precedents established by the NationStates game moderators.

In Oct. / Nov. 2003, two resolutions regarding waste in the oceans reached quroum about the same time:

Oceanic Waste Dumping (#34)
Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning (#35)

They were back to back, and yet the second resolution was unnecessary because of the passage of the first. However, it was then left in the queue and not deleted, because it had reached quorum before the vote on #34 had been completed.

Furthermore, it has since been established that the game admins were willing at the time of addition of repeals to the game to delete resolutions (most of which were furtherment of democracy categories) that conflicted with existing rules. One would have thought that #35 would have been removed at that time since it was essentially a duplication of #34.

But I've not pressed the grandfathered clause *yet*, because frankly I strongly disagree with this decision and was hoping that the game moderators would not have done this. I'm extremely disappointed in the decision, and would like to ask for an explanation, not on the grandfathered clause (which they've now overturned without explanation), but on the new tests they propose to place on what is "necessary", because Reformentia provided ample "burden of proof" that was clearly ignored.

He couldn't, and isn't, which is why he wasn't warned for his Proposal. However, with the passage of UNSA, all Proposals must heed what it says. Since Bio didn't it was deleted.

Look at it this way:

A Proposal legalizing all abortions and one outlawing all abortions are in the list. The one legalizing goes up to vote first, while the other waits in queue. Now, if the one legalizing passes, do you honestly expect the one outlawing to be allowed to hit the floor for vote?

That is a very poor analogy for this particular case, given that the moderation staff has already established that reaching quorum is sufficient to pass the legality test.

In this case a proposal reached quorum before the vote was concluded on a resolution that had a vague statement declaring that weapons could be banned if they were not necessary to national defense. There is nothing in the United Nations Security Act to list off the requirements of "necessary", and yet the author of the deleted proposal pointed to a statement that he felt justified the risks of bio-weapons. That statement was ignored on what basis???

Sigh.

I thought I was perfectly clear when I first commented on this as Man or Astroman.

Proposals must explicitly state that the weapon systems to be banned is unnecessary. This isn't difficult people. You have your loophole, use it.

To clarify...

If it is true that the United Nations Security Act doesn't mandate language, then all that has to happen as a resolution author just as to *say* that they feel their resolution bans a weapon that is not necessary to national defense, and they aren't contradicting the United Nations Security Act. Problem solved.

Well, the author can't just *say* that. It needs to be in the text of the proposal somewhere. Since our opinions don't have the force of international law (ie. were passed by a majority vote of the UN) they can't affect said law in the way you seem to be indicating.

<snipped for brevity>

And I must repeat my question. If a proposal fails to properly define what it is that it is prohibiting will the UN require that the burden then falls on ALL future proposals to provide that definition FOR that first proposal that lacked it so that those future proposals can then say "and now that we've gone and defined what that previous proposal was talking about we can now say we definitely aren't contradicting it"?

Certainly. That's pretty much what happens with all resolutions if you want to work around them. Some bloke says we have the right to a fair trial but doesn't say what that is so now future legislation has to step in and define it if that's what the UN wants to be done. Some bloke says we have the right to worship as we choose but never says what "worship" is so if we want to address the issue in future legislation we may have to do wrangling similar to what's happening here over "necessary for defense". That's what happens when proposal authors don't want to spend a few years of their life making sure every word is defined and every loophole closed and couldn't do so anyway because of the character limit.

I understand that this pretty much sucks for you and is more than a little unfair given the effort you put into the telegram campaign and all, and I'm impressed with your determination and ability to debate, but I don't see that you'll get anywhere with this line of questioning. Just my opinion.

Sigh.

I thought I was perfectly clear when I first commented on this as Man or Astroman.

Proposals must explicitly state that the weapon systems to be banned is unnecessary. This isn't difficult people. You have your loophole, use it.

I already stated I'm going to use it, but the question here is WHY it must explicitly state that the weapon ban is unnecessary. I'm not asking how to make the proposal legal, I'm asking how exactly the UNSA made it ILLEGAL and thus required the use of such a loophole in the first place. That is completely unclear to me and the answers to those question will go a long way towards clarifying exactly how the UNSA required any such thing and provide clarity for future treatments of similar situations should they arise.

So... answers?

They are fairly straightforward questions.

Sigh.

I thought I was perfectly clear when I first commented on this as Man or Astroman.

Proposals must explicitly state that the weapon systems to be banned is unnecessary. This isn't difficult people. You have your loophole, use it.

I was hoping for a formal ruling, and wasn't sure if that was the case. This certainly is, and is something that we can work with.

Thank you.

Reformentia, I think your proposal can be salvaged by adding a new preambulatory clause that says something along the lines of:

RECOGNIZING the inherent risk that is added when deploying bio-weapons in defense or attack to soldiers and civilians on both sides of a conflict and the fact that conventional weapons can still be used to defend nations;

1. CONSIDERS bio-weapons to be unnecessary to the defense of a nation;

2. CONDEMNS any use of bio-weapons, even if defensive;

etc.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting these exact words, but I believe this is what Hack and Hotroddia are suggesting here.

Sigh.

I thought I was perfectly clear when I first commented on this as Man or Astroman.

Proposals must explicitly state that the weapon systems to be banned is unnecessary. This isn't difficult people. You have your loophole, use it.

I'm not disputing WHAT you are saying, I'm disputing WHY. I'd like to understand better HOW it is that the UNSA makes it so that each weapons ban must explicitly state a weapon is unnecessary if there is no indication ANYWHERE in UN law that any weapons that have not been declared as unnecessary are necessary. I guess we are disputing the ruling because we fail to see the logic in it and were hoping you could, perhaps, explain it.

After all - any ruling sets a precedent that can be used for determining how a future proposal works and how it limits things.

I already stated I'm going to use it, but the question here is WHY it must explicitly state that the weapon ban is unnecessary. I'm not asking how to make the proposal legal, I'm asking how exactly the UNSA made it ILLEGAL and thus required the use of such a loophole in the first place. That is completely unclear to me and the answers to those question will go a long way towards clarifying exactly how the UNSA required any such thing and provide clarity for future treatments of similar situations should they arise.

Short answer: because I said so.

There are certain logical, reasonable assumptions that must be made when reading UN Resolutions. For instance, what would be the point of UNSA if all weapons were automatically assumed to be unnecessary. It would be as useful as a Resolution protecting invisible, imaginary, pink unicorns.

The base assumption is that all weapons systems are necessary for national defence. A Proposal to ban $weapon is you attempting to get other people to agree with you that it is unnecessary. You must state that it is unnecessary in the Proposal, otherwise you have violated the previous Resolution, which is assuming that all weapons are necessary.

Proposals must be 100% legal before they reach the floor for vote. That is why claiming that votes will determin if "the UN" views the weapon as necessary is not sufficient. An ex post facto appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

You want to know how the NSUN made your Proposal illegal?DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack,See where it says that "member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary"? Your Proposal was trying to take away that right, which puts it in direct violation.

Your continued semantic hair splitting will not help you here. UNSA didn't give a definition of 'necessary'. Nor did it define 'weapon', 'citizen', 'defence', 'acts', 'body', 'legislation', 'nation', 'member', 'warfare', 'attack', 'sovereign', 'person', 'from', 'is', 'a', or, well, any other word.

Therefore, we use a bit of logic and common sense. I would have liked the players to be able to do it themselves. Instead, it was more important to try and dodge Proposal removal, and to try to illegitimize the Resolution. Well, now you have a hard and fast rule.

Short answer: because I said so.

But "because I said so" would leave us in a little bit of legal limbo when trying to guage the legality of future potential proposals wouldn't it... so I'll just focus on the long answer.

There are certain logical, reasonable assumptions that must be made when reading UN Resolutions. For instance, what would be the point of UNSA if all weapons were automatically assumed to be unnecessary. It would be as useful as a Resolution protecting invisible, imaginary, pink unicorns.

The base assumption is that all weapons systems are necessary for national defence.

Thank you. At least half of question 1 answered.

A Proposal to ban $weapon is you attempting to get other people to agree with you that it is unnecessary.

Exactly the point I was making previously but which was rejected by you as an ex post facto appeal to authority.

You must state that it is unnecessary in the Proposal, otherwise you have violated the previous Resolution, which is assuming that all weapons are necessary.

And now I'm lost. You just stated a weapons ban proposal WAS an appeal that the weapon you were attempting to ban was unnecessary. That being the case would mean this would simply be requiring a redundant statement.

Proposals must be 100% legal before they reach the floor for vote.

Understood completely. Which presents us with a large problem with your earlier statement that all weapons were currently assumed necessary per the UNSA.

That is why claiming that votes will determin if "the UN" views the weapon as necessary is not sufficient. An ex post facto appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

But what you have stated as a requirement to make weapons ban proposals legal IS an ex post facto appeal to authority!!!!

All weapons are currently assumed necessary per the UNSA according to your statement here in this post. Therefore biological weapons are (for example) assumed necessary right now. That is the current legal status as of the time of any submitted proposal.

Can the statements contained within a proposal alter the legal status of a weapon system BEFORE the proposal is passed? If not, sticking "this weapon is unnecessary" into a proposal that hasn't passed a vote accomplishes absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Are you starting to see why some of us might feel the need for some of these questions to be answered?

You want to know how the NSUN made your Proposal illegal?See where it says that "member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary"? Your Proposal was trying to take away that right, which puts it in direct violation.

No, my proposal was trying to take away the right to use a weapon which was NEVER defined to be necessary as far as I could tell. However if you maintain that the UNSA automatically defined all weapons as necessary then that, to me, presents us with the fairly serious problem outlined above.

Your continued semantic hair splitting will not help you here. UNSA didn't give a definition of 'necessary'. Nor did it define 'weapon', 'citizen', 'defence', 'acts', 'body', 'legislation', 'nation', 'member', 'warfare', 'attack', 'sovereign', 'person', 'from', 'is', 'a', or, well, any other word.

Therefore, we use a bit of logic and common sense.

I'm trying...

I would have liked the players to be able to do it themselves. Instead, it was more important to try and dodge Proposal removal, and to try to illegitimize the Resolution. Well, now you have a hard and fast rule.

Fine, so our hard and fast rule is that statements contained in weapons ban proposals that have not even been put to a vote yet change the legal status of weaponry in the NSUN (at least while the proposal exists)... therefore allowing a proposal to transform a weapon which is currently legally assumed to be necessary and therefore illegal to ban into a weapon currently considered to be unnecessary and therefore legally fair game for an attempt to ban it?

Because if they only accomplish making the weapon unnecessary after the proposal passes that leaves the proposal as illegally attempting to ban a weapon which is, at the time of the proposal submission, still assumed necessary and therefore unbannable.

Is that really the precedent you want to set here? Making unpassed proposal contents have ACTIVE effects on the legal standing of the things they are speaking of?

I was hoping for a formal ruling, and wasn't sure if that was the case. This certainly is, and is something that we can work with.

Thank you.

Reformentia, I think your proposal can be salvaged by adding a new preambulatory clause that says something along the lines of:

RECOGNIZING the inherent risk that is added when deploying bio-weapons in defense or attack to soldiers and civilians on both sides of a conflict and the fact that conventional weapons can still be used to defend nations;

1. CONSIDERS bio-weapons to be unnecessary to the defense of a nation;

2. CONDEMNS any use of bio-weapons, even if defensive;

etc.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting these exact words, but I believe this is what Hack and Hotroddia are suggesting here.

That is what I'm suggesting, but keep in mind it's not the only option. Reformentia could do certain other things to keep it legal, but I understand not wanting to. This particular loophole is the one that allows Reformentia the greatest leeway in restricting biological weapons.

That is what I'm suggesting, but keep in mind it's not the only option.

It's just a very hazardous option.

What this is saying is that the statements contained in proposals which have never even been put to vote have active legal effect as soon as the proposal hits the list. It's saying that because I just submitted a proposal that says biological weapons are unnecessary for defense biological weapons immediately BECAME unnecessary for defense making my proposal to bant them legal, even though a previously passed active resolution has according to the moderators established that those weapons are necessary making a proposal to ban the exact same weapons illegal...

Do you have any idea the havoc I could wreak (were I of the mind to) by taking advantage of a precedent like this?

This is saying I can at least temporarily (for the length of time a proposal remains in the list at least) rewrite the effects of previous legislation. And that I can do it without even actually PASSING a proposal!

According to the arguments presented in this thread 2 days ago biological weapons were considered by the UN to be established as necessary per the UNSA. And 1 day ago that effect was undone just because I submitted a PROPOSAL that said the opposite, simultaneously making my proposal no longer illegally attempting to ban a necessary weapon.

If this ruling stands we're in for some interesting times.

Short answer: because I said so.

We know this precedent exists in just about any community, but still.... you could've also deleted the UNSA "because you said so" but you didn't for a variety of reasons - despite your personal objection.

There are certain logical, reasonable assumptions that must be made when reading UN Resolutions. For instance, what would be the point of UNSA if all weapons were automatically assumed to be unnecessary. It would be as useful as a Resolution protecting invisible, imaginary, pink unicorns.

1) It doesn't make it useless - just momentarily useless. I believe it was Allemande who came up with the idea of just sending a proposal through that declared a default value of necessary for all weapons. Personally, I'm thinking of working on something of a similar manner - only it differentiates between purposes of weapons to determine necessity. You could just as easily send through a proposal indicating "weapon X is now considered necessary" - and with exception to WMDs and certain other weapons (landmines, etc), you'd almost certainly get it through the UN. It actually adds a rather interesting dimension to the UN
2) A poorly built resolution will be useless and can still be put into place in the UN. If you recall various arguments of loopholes (in particular) on weapons resolutions - they end up doing nothing. That doesn't mean you need to change how the UN works so that you can now state that it DOES all of a sudden have an effect.
3) Would you delete a resolution that protects imaginary pink unicorns?
4) (unrelated) if they are invisible, how do you know they are pink?

The base assumption is that all weapons systems are necessary for national defence. A Proposal to ban $weapon is you attempting to get other people to agree with you that it is unnecessary. You must state that it is unnecessary in the Proposal, otherwise you have violated the previous Resolution, which is assuming that all weapons are necessary.

The assumption is only intrinsic in nature. It was never explicitly stated - and to continue Reformatia's train of thought, do you really want to set that an assumption becomes law even if it isn't stated within a resolution?

Proposals must be 100% legal before they reach the floor for vote. That is why claiming that votes will determin if "the UN" views the weapon as necessary is not sufficient. An ex post facto appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

We're still debating it even after the deletion of the original and resubmission of a modified version that follows your guidelines for a reason.

You want to know how the NSUN made your Proposal illegal?See where it says that "member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary"? Your Proposal was trying to take away that right, which puts it in direct violation.

We see that - but we dispute that this means that bio-weapons (or any other weapon) are necessary.

Your continued semantic hair splitting will not help you here. UNSA didn't give a definition of 'necessary'. Nor did it define 'weapon', 'citizen', 'defence', 'acts', 'body', 'legislation', 'nation', 'member', 'warfare', 'attack', 'sovereign', 'person', 'from', 'is', 'a', or, well, any other word.

We don't need it to define necessary - but that is one way the author could've avoided it. Another would be saying "all weapons unless otherwise defined in other UN resolutions shall be given a default value of necessary." which allows for weapons to be declared unnecessary but makes it so that all weapons are considered necessary by default (and therefore requiring that line to be added fairly explicitly).

Therefore, we use a bit of logic and common sense. I would have liked the players to be able to do it themselves. Instead, it was more important to try and dodge Proposal removal, and to try to illegitimize the Resolution. Well, now you have a hard and fast rule.

I see the logic in your argument - but that doesn't mean that I agree this is the logic that I would like to use. Just because an answer is logical doesn't mean it's the right one - because using logic, two sides came to two different conclusions.

I don't dispute that logic and common sense should be used for determining definitions, but that does not equate to assigning a general status to weapons - especially something that is so contentious in nature.

What this is saying is that the statements contained in proposals which have never even been put to vote have active legal effect as soon as the proposal hits the list. It's saying that because I just submitted a proposal that says biological weapons are unnecessary for defense biological weapons immediately BECAME unnecessary for defense making my proposal to bant them legal, even though a previously passed active resolution has according to the moderators established that those weapons are necessary making a proposal to ban the exact same weapons illegal...

No, resolutions aren't affected by proposals in the list. All the addition of an "unnecessary" argument does to your proposal is make it legal--because it wouldn't then be contradictory to the UNSA.

Also, nowhere in the UN is there something saying biological weapons are currently 'necessary'. There's just an omission of a ruling--which means individual nations get to fill in the gaps. A bioweapons ban with an "unnecessary" argument would just be a proposal for a UN wide decision on the necessity of bioweapons.

Summation, I think the critical points are:
Proposals have no effect on UN law until they become resolutions--they're only potential legal statements.
In the absence of international law, the defualt sovereign authority is the national government.

No, resolutions aren't affected by proposals in the list. All the addition of an "unnecessary" argument does to your proposal is make it legal--because it wouldn't then be contradictory to the UNSA.

Read Hack's statements again. The UNSA made all weapons assumed necessary by the UN. If they're assumed necessary they're illegal to ban. Period.

The only way including the statement that the weapons are unnecessary in a weapons ban proposal could make that proposal legal is if that statement took active effect immediately upon the submission of the proposal.

Also, nowhere in the UN is there something saying biological weapons are currently 'necessary'.

That was my original point, but it was rejected. It was ruled that the passage of the UNSA defaulted them to "necessary" status.. thus making the first ban proposal illegal.

That's the only way it COULD make the first ban proposal illegal. The UNSA doesn't make it illegal to ban weapons that we don't know are necessary.... or which might just possibly be necessary... it only makes it illegal to ban weapons which ARE necessary.

Read Hack's statements again. The UNSA made all weapons assumed necessary by the UN. If they're assumed necessary they're illegal to ban. Period.

I think Hack post was forced to glaze over some of the nuances (no fault of Hack, of course, if he did). Mainly, I feel there's a substantial difference between all weapons being "assumed necessary" and "nations being allowed to decide for themselves what is and isn't necessary".

Simply put, there's nothing in UNSA what constitutes a "necessary" and "unnecessary" weapon, thus this decision is left up to nations until further notice (nothing says that nations are allowed to declare anything they want "necessary", either, so future UN resolution is not precluded by UNSA). As with almost every national decision in Nationstates, the UN can decide for all member nations. What Hack is saying a little more clearly (instead of saying the default setting for all weapons types is "necessary") is that it is now a national decision of what weapon types are "necessary" until a UN resolution determines that a weapons type is outside of the range of their right to interpret UNSA.

In effect Hack's right and all weapons are considered "necessary" because by some national government somewhere it probably is. And, even if it isn't considered necessary in any nation it is still the national governments' right to decide UNSA's application (in setting forth no definition of "necessary for defense" UNSA gives national governments the choice). If a weapons ban does not relinquish that right, that weapons ban will contradict the UNSA.

The reason a bioweapons ban which does not identify bioweapons as unnecessary is illegal is that it doesn't wrest the power of deciding necessity from nations. UNSA allows nations to decide for themselves what weapons are "necessary", in lieu of decisions from the UN about what is and isn't legal. Any future weapons ban will have to curtail this national right (in absentia of UN decision, really) before deciding weapons types' necessity for nations for them. Weapons bans and UNSA will overlap unless there is a clear distinction made in the weapons ban submitted after UNSA. It's the same principle behind the process of repeal and replacement of resolutions in Nationstates, rather than just outright replacement.

Consider the following example:

Resolution #1 All spoons which are necessary for eating are legal in member nations

Resolution #2a Silver spoons are banned.

These two contradict. Nations which determined silver spoons are necessary for eating (a decision given to national governments until further notice by resolution) now have to outlaw those same spoons in Resolution #2a (spoons which are guaranteed legality in Resolution #1). These spoons are both legal and illegal at the same time--since Resolution #2a never told nations that they couldn't pick silver spoons as "necessary". Resolution #2a must first wrest from national governments the right to deem silver spoons necessary and then ban them. Otherwise these two contradict. Here's the revision:

Resolution #1 All spoons which are necessary for eating are legal in member nations

Resolution #2b Silver spoons are unnecessary for eating, and banned.



Just like all proposals, in proposal-form Resolution #2b will have no effect until passed by the general assembly. The difference between the two is not that Resolution #2b's presence in the proposal list changes how Resolution #1 is effected, but that Resolution #2b, as a resolution, would be legal. It 's matter of potential legality (Resolution #2a would not be legal, and would be removed from the list), not of the effect proposals have on passed resolutions.

Summating, my two points: (1) Nations have a right to decide what is necessary and unnecessary until further notice from the UN. (2) And just because a certain proposal's effect on resolution interpretation is considered legal, doesn't mean that that proposal's effect is in effect once the proposal hits the list.

Your bioweapons ban proposal would have a legal effect in declaring bioweapons unnecessary (and thus abolishing nations' rights to decide in that arena), if it were a resolution. However, as it isn't a resolution, it does not have those effects. So, I really don't see where all this "proposals in the list have legal effect on member nations" is coming from.


EDIT: Actually, my interpretation would set up a different problem: your relinquishing of nations’ rights to decide necessity of bioweapons would have to be an active numbered clause--as the preamble clauses have no effect.

I think Hack post was forced to glaze over some of the nuances (no fault of Hack, of course, if he did). Mainly, I feel there's a substantial difference between all weapons being "assumed necessary" and "nations being allowed to decide for themselves what is and isn't necessary".

Yes, there is. But the latter won't make a weapons ban proposal illegal and couldn't justify the deletion of the first version of the biological wapons ban.

Again. The UNSA makes illegal ONLY weapons that ARE necessary for defense. Not weapons that might, maybe, possibly be necessary for defense

Simply put, there's nothing in UNSA what constitutes a "necessary" and "unnecessary" weapon, thus this decision is left up to nations until further notice (nothing says that nations are allowed to declare anything they want "necessary", either, so future UN resolution is not precluded by UNSA). As with almost every national decision in Nationstates, the UN can decide for all member nations. What Hack is saying a little more clearly (instead of saying the default setting for all weapons types is "necessary") is that it is now a national decision of what weapon types are "necessary" until a UN resolution determines that a weapons type is outside of the range of their right to interpret UNSA.

No, that is not what Hack is saying here. Again, that is exactly the point I raised originally... and that is exactly the point which was rejected by Hack when he instead ruled that the UNSA has established by default that all weapons are assumed necessary resulting in the deletion of the first ban proposal.

In effect Hack's right and all weapons are considered "necessary" because by some national government somewhere it probably is.

Irrelevent. If the necessity isn't legislated it can't make a proposal illegal. That's why Hack had to rule that the UNSA established necessity in order to declare the first boiweapons ban illegal. Which is the decision I'm still here objecting to and pointing out the disturing consequences of.

The reason a bioweapons ban which does not identify bioweapons as unnecessary is illegal is that it doesn't wrest the power of deciding necessity from nations.

See above. And if you ban a weapon you most certainly do wrest that power of decision from nations.

UNSA allows nations to decide for themselves what weapons are "necessary", in lieu of decisions from the UN about what is and isn't legal. Any future weapons ban will have to curtail this national right (in absentia of UN decision, really) before deciding weapons types' necessity for nations for them. Weapons bans and UNSA will overlap unless there is a clear distinction made in the weapons ban submitted after UNSA. It's the same principle behind the process of repeal and replacement of resolutions in Nationstates, rather than just outright replacement.

Consider the following example:

Resolution #1 All spoons which are necessary for eating are legal in member nations

Resolution #2a Silver spoons are banned.

These two contradict.

No, they don't. Silver spoons were never established as a necessary utensil... ever... in any way in any legislation.

So the latter proposal doesn't contradict any legislation... which is the only thing proposals aren't allowed to contradict. It can contradict your personal opinion about the necessity of a utensil all it likes, that doesn't make a proposal illegal.

Nations which determined silver spoons are necessary for eating (a decision given to national governments until further notice by resolution) now have to outlaw those same spoons

Yes, they do. Irrelevent. Their opinion of the necessity of silver spoons was never legislated so the second proposal isn;t in contradiction with any UN legislation so it's not illegal.

in Resolution #2a (spoons which are guaranteed legality in Resolution #1).

You're just contradicting yourself. You just finished arguing up above that the UNSA did NOT make biological weapons necessary. If it didn't make biological weapons necessary and if no other legislation establishes the necessity of bioweapons and if it only reserves the right to use weapons which ARE necessary it didn't reserve the right to use bioweapons.

Period.

Same goes for the spoons.

Which is why Hack had to rule the UNSA DID establish a necessary status for bioweapons, which is what causes the large problem previously mentioned.

These spoons are both legal and illegal at the same time

A state of affairs which cannot actually logically exist in a single peice of legislation. Sorry, no dice.

Yes, there is. But the latter won't make a weapons ban proposal illegal and couldn't justify the deletion of the first version of the biological wapons ban.

Again. The UNSA makes illegal ONLY weapons that ARE necessary for defense. Not weapons that might, maybe, possibly be necessary for defense

But, as it doesn't define what weapons ARE necessary for defense, that field is determined by individual nations until UN resolution says otherwise (I assume you saying that UNSA 'made "illegal" weapons that are necessary' is just a typo). This is the default national sovereignty set forth by Rights and Duties of UN States, and standard resolution interpretation since.
Irrelevent. If the necessity isn't legislated it can't make a proposal illegal.
But it is. I'm not saying that it isn't legislated I'm just saying that nations have the right to decide it until further notice.

See above. And if you ban a weapon you most certainly do wrest that power of decision from nations.
Yes, but it would contradict nations rights to define what is necessary themselves, as put forth by UNSA, unless that ban specifically revoked that right for that weapons type (says that the UN is making all nations define bioweapons as unnecessary).

No, they don't. Silver spoons were never established as a necessary utensil... ever... in any way in any legislation.

So the latter proposal doesn't contradict any legislation... which is the only thing proposals aren't allowed to contradict. It can contradict your personal opinion about the necessity of a utensil all it likes, that doesn't make a proposal illegal.

But it does. The first resolution allows nations to determine which spoons are necessary (by omission of the definition of necessity), while the second refuses to recognize that right, and thus contradicts it by not explaining that silver spoons can't be ruled by nations as necessary for eating. After these two would be passed, a nation could look at Resolution #1 for justification for using spoons (as no one has told them they can't define silver spoons as necessary), and then at Resolution #2a to believe they are in violation by doing so. Resolution #2a would be contradicting their legal use protected by Resolution #1 (which allows nations to define *any* spoons as necessary) if it didn't first outline that individual nations weren't allowed to define silver spoons as necessary. Repeal then Replace.

Yes, they do. Irrelevent. Their opinion of the necessity of silver spoons was never legislated so the second proposal isn;t in contradiction with any UN legislation so it's not illegal.
Which body decides necessity was legislated by Resolution #1. By not defining necessity, it allows individual nations to determine it. They have that power until further notice, as an extension of Resolution #1. The second resolution cannot intrude on that until it has revoked the rights of spoondom-necessity from silver spoons.

You're just contradicting yourself. You just finished arguing up above that the UNSA did NOT make biological weapons necessary. If it didn't make biological weapons necessary and if no other legislation establishes the necessity of bioweapons and if it only reserves the right to use weapons which ARE necessary it didn't reserve the right to use bioweapons.

It didn't and it did--which is what I've been trying to say the whole time (and since it's been my message through it all, is hardly contradicting myself). UNSA allowed nations to determine the necessity of biological weapons until further notice. A weapons ban will have to give that further notice (that necessity in bioweapons or whatever area is no longer an option for national governments) before banning that weapons type. That is the exigency in place and future proposals must address this. That's all I'm saying. That's why I see weapons ban proposals which don't have "non-necessity" clauses in them as illegal: because they tread on the right set forth by a previous resolution, therefore contradicting it.

At this rate any nation wishing to submit a proposal may need to hire a NSUN lawyer. lol.

But, as it doesn't define what weapons ARE necessary for defense,

I know. As I have already pointed out many times in the course of this thread.

that field is determined by individual nations until UN resolution says otherwise

They can form opinions of it for themselves all they like. The proposal doesn't reserve their right to individually determine such a thing, and their individual opinions on the matter don't have the power to make proposals illegal. Only a contradiction of previously passed LEGISLATION can make a proposal illegal.

But it is. I'm not saying that it isn't legislated I'm just saying that nations have the right to decide it until further notice.

Sure they do. That's irrelevent to the legality of a ban proposal however. A Ban proposal passing IS that "further notice".

Yes, but it would contradict nations rights to define what is necessary themselves,

That right isn't reserved in UN legislation. A proposal can contradict it all it likes.

as put forth by UNSA, unless that ban specifically revoked that right for that weapons type (says that the UN is making all nations define bioweapons as unnecessary).

ALL bans specifically revoke that right for the weapons type they're speaking of! That's what bans ARE.

The first resolution allows nations to determine which spoons are necessary (by omission of the definition of necessity),

Allow, in that it doesn't specifically prevent it, yes.

RESERVES that right through specifically legislating it? No.

And the latter is the only thing that could have made the second proposal illegal by causing it to contradict the first.

while the second refuses to recognize that right, and thus contradicts it by not explaining that silver spoons can't be ruled by nations as necessary for eating. After these two would be passed, a nation could look at Resolution #1 for justification for using spoons (as no one has told them they can't define silver spoons as necessary),

No one guaranteed them that they could as long as that resolution was in effect either. THAT would make a future ban of them illegal, but it wasn't done.

Which body decides necessity was legislated by Resolution #1.

No, it wasn't. Resolution #1 just never addressed it at all.

By not defining necessity, it allows individual nations to determine it. They have that power until further notice, as an extension of Resolution #1.

Again, there's a difference between "allowing" in the sense that it didn;t specifically prevent it, and RESERVING in the sense that it specificaly protects it. Only the latter makes a future ban illegal.

And again, a ban IS the "further notice" you are speaking of.

*strange argument*

UN law doesn't need to bend to National law, National law needs to bend to UN law. What does this mean?

Since the UNSA makes it so that necessary weapons were banned, and we passed the original version of Reformatia's proposal, they wouldn't contradict each other because the Nation would have to bend in a way that they would have to follow both resolutions. While you don't explicitly declare the weapon necessary or unnecessary, the Nation would be required to at least refuse to declare it necessary as if it were necessary, they would be contradicting the combination of the resolutions (the weapons are banned - but they are guaranteed - but they are banned...) and thus they would have to change it. The UN is not required to answer to nations.

At this rate any nation wishing to submit a proposal may need to hire a NSUN lawyer. lol.
I am at your disposal. There will, of course, be a fee...

J. Fleece, Esq.
Hatchet, Cozen and Associates

They can form opinions of it for themselves all they like. The proposal doesn't reserve their right to individually determine such a thing, and their individual opinions on the matter don't have the power to make proposals illegal. Only a contradiction of previously passed LEGISLATION can make a proposal illegal.

Sure they do. That's irrelevent to the legality of a ban proposal however. A Ban proposal passing IS that "further notice".

-snip-

ALL bans specifically revoke that right for the weapons type they're speaking of! That's what bans ARE.

-snip-

And again, a ban IS the "further notice" you are speaking of.

There's a difference between revoking the rights of individual nations to possess and use biological weapons and revoking the right for them to determine necessity of a weapon type. A ban by itself is simply revoking the right for nations to possess and use weapons. Revoking the rights of member nations to determine the necessity of a weapons type (and by so doing protecting the use of that weapon under the UNSA) is a whole different kettle of fish.

The UNSA provides protection against banning for every weapons type that is "necessary". It's up to individual nations to declare necessity for certain weapon types, until resolutions revoke that right. This is the function of UNSA. To ban a weapons type without disallowing nations from determining that weapon type as necessary would be to make the ban contradictory to UNSA (UNSA says that they're allowed to use them because they're "necessary", the weapons ban says they're not allowed to use them). This contradiction is illegal. First one must exclude a weapons type from UNSA protection (ie. revoke national rights to determine the necessity of that weapons type). Then one can revoke individual nations' right to possess and use those weapons.



Let me rephrase all that verbosity for clarity:

> UNSA protects weapons nations determine to be necessary.

> A weapons ban would be contradicting UNSA's protection of weapons types if it didn't disallow nations from determining that weapons type as necessary.

> A weapons type must revoke the right to determine a weapons type as necessary before revoking nations' rights to that weapon type in order to be legal and un-contradicting with UNSA.

I am at your disposal. There will, of course, be a fee...

J. Fleece, Esq.
Hatchet, Cozen and Associates

Fris?

Fris?
I wish I'd thought of it, but no.

Greetings.

It seems perfectly clear to us that the clause "member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack" can only be interpreted one way.

1. Member states have the right... any weapons that are necessary
AND
2. Member states have the right... all weapons that are necessary

The first clause allows a state to construct and utilize any components A, B, C... of a defence system. The second allows a state to construct and utilise all the components A, B, C... of that defence system.

Conclusion #1 - individual weapon types for individual states

We can certainly test the necessity of individual weapons without invoking weapon designs and potential attacks or attackers.

Case: 'Helfland' is a landlocked state with no access to the sea which wishes to construct submarines as part of their defence. Necessity is zero. Optionality is a different matter.

Conclusion #2 - ban against future weaponry

Hence it becomes possible to put up legislation that would ban any weapon which no state finds necessary for defence. The test for this is also simple: obviously, if a state does not possess the weapon but continues to exist as a state, the weapon is unnecessary at the point of legislation.

Therefore, the development to production of ANY new weapons technology after this legislation would be prohibited by such a ban.

Conclusion #3 - right to develop weaponry

Research and development are not included in the UNSA. Hence it is still possible to curtail such if desired.

Conclusion #4 - sufficiency and utility

The quantity of weaponry is not specified. 'All weapons' should refer to a specific number of weapons. Otherwise, 'all' would take on certain properties of a variable, rather than an absolute. A weapons cap would be legal to some extent. And what if the weapons are all used? Would a refill be allowed? It is possible to argue for infinite weaponry, but since infinite weaponry is not possible, it cannot be necessary. Hence the number is finite.

Case A: In order to establish parity, 'Helfland' constructs twice as many nuclear warheads as its potentially aggressive neighbours, with a total blast equivalent also approximately doubled. It then seeks to construct five more. At which point does it exceed the 'necessary' amount and thus move from sufficiency to excess?

Case B: In order to deter aggression, 'Helfland' fires ALL its warheads at neighbouring 'Fluxenburg'. 'Fluxenburg' then ceases to exist. Logically, 'Helfland' now has (n-1) potential enemies. Can 'Helfland' argue that since it is now likely to be vilified and condemned, that it needs MORE weapons for defence (as it may now have n+m enemies)? Ad nauseam.

A weapons cap is therefore still legal, since it would establish a finite level - which must already logically exist - and does not ban weapons outright. As to whether it allows a necessary quantity for defence, that is moot.

I am at your disposal. There will, of course, be a fee...

J. Fleece, Esq.
Hatchet, Cozen and Associates

*offers first born as retainer.*

There's a difference between revoking the rights of individual nations to possess and use biological weapons and revoking the right for them to determine necessity of a weapon type. A ban by itself is simply revoking the right for nations to possess and use weapons. Revoking the rights of member nations to determine the necessity of a weapons type (and by so doing protecting the use of that weapon under the UNSA) is a whole different kettle of fish.

The UNSA provides protection against banning for every weapons type that is "necessary". It's up to individual nations to declare necessity for certain weapon types, until resolutions revoke that right. This is the function of UNSA. To ban a weapons type without disallowing nations from determining that weapon type as necessary would be to make the ban contradictory to UNSA (UNSA says that they're allowed to use them because they're "necessary", the weapons ban says they're not allowed to use them). This contradiction is illegal. First one must exclude a weapons type from UNSA protection (ie. revoke national rights to determine the necessity of that weapons type). Then one can revoke individual nations' right to possess and use those weapons.



Let me rephrase all that verbosity for clarity:

> UNSA protects weapons nations determine to be necessary.

> A weapons ban would be contradicting UNSA's protection of weapons types if it didn't disallow nations from determining that weapons type as necessary.

> A weapons type must revoke the right to determine a weapons type as necessary before revoking nations' rights to that weapon type in order to be legal and un-contradicting with UNSA.


You're missing the point of my argument. By creating a weapons ban on a weapon not stated as necessary explicitly by the UN, your contradiction is at the national rather than UN level. Normally, when this happens, the UN level is kept and the national level is thrown in the trash. Case and point - before resolution 61, if I had outlawed Abortion in my nation, the Resolution (which legalizes abortion) was not required to be concerned with what my laws and government decisions were. Instead, they overruled my laws.

Before you argue that if it is deemed necessary, it is guaranteed at the international level, however the international level doesn't keep the power of the determination is the hands of the nation. So I guess I have argued my way to a question I can fire at the mods:

If we were to assume that both the original draft of the Bio Weapons Ban and UNSA were in place, would a national law stating that bio-weapons are necessary for the defense of that nation overrule the international law of bio-weapons being banned, or would the ban require through contradiction that the nation change its law? I think precedent says the nation has to change its law.

There's a difference between revoking the rights of individual nations to possess and use biological weapons and revoking the right for them to determine necessity of a weapon type.

And just keep ignoring that the UNSA never reserved either of the rights you just listed...

The ONLY right reserved by the UNSA is the right to construct and utilize weapons that ARE necessary. Not that which might possibly be considered necessary in someone's opinion somewhere. If the necessity isn;t legislatively established then it can't be contradicted by any future proposal.

The UNSA provides protection against banning for every weapons type that is "necessary".

There you go! That IS necessary.

It's up to individual nations to declare necessity for certain weapon types, until resolutions revoke that right.

No it isn't. They are free to frorm their own opinions about defensive necessity all they like, and they are free to utilize any weapons not banned by the UN, but NOWHERE is their right to DECLARE the necessity of a weapon system in any way whatsoever that is legislatively binding on the United Nations and could therefore effect the legality of proposals reserved in ANY peice of UN legislation. Including the UNSA.

This is the function of UNSA. To ban a weapons type without disallowing nations from determining that weapon type as necessary would be to make the ban contradictory to UNSA (UNSA says that they're allowed to use them because they're "necessary",

No it doesn't. It says they're allowed to use them IF they're necessary, not BECAUSE they're necessary.

Let me rephrase all that verbosity for clarity:

> UNSA protects weapons nations determine to be necessary.

No it doesn't. Kindly stop rewriting the resolution to make your argument.

It protects weapons that ARE necessary.

The only way they can be considered necessary by the UN is if there is UN legislation establishing their necessity in some way, and with the possible exception of nukes (owing to the Nuclear Armaments resolution) this is not the case for any weapon system.

I wish I'd thought of it, but no.

Curious then, because it *was* very Frisbeeterian to offer to sell a needed service at a considerable markup! ;)

Where are those Texans? They're my second guess.


FYI: I do think this is a good and very important discussion, but I'm also PURPOSEFULLY injecting a bit of humour here to keep things happy and interesting.

As for the subject at hand, I think this has turned out to be a significant change in the NationStates rules, and Wolfish's joke is so well timed, because you do have to have the ability to navigate through the rulings in order to not get a proposal warning these days.

I'd like to suggest that players continue to debate the subject and also request that the game moderators make a reference to their final ruling in the UN rules on this very particular case (no rush, though).

Curious then, because it *was* very Frisbeeterian to offer to sell a needed service at a considerable markup! ;)

Where are those Texans? They're my second guess.


FYI: I do think this is a good and very important discussion, but I'm also PURPOSEFULLY injecting a bit of humour here to keep things happy and interesting.

As for the subject at hand, I think this has turned out to be a significant change in the NationStates rules, and Wolfish's joke is so well timed, because you do have to have the ability to navigate through the rulings in order to not get a proposal warning these days.

I'd like to suggest that players continue to debate the subject and also request that the game moderators make a reference to their final ruling in the UN rules on this very particular case (no rush, though).

Absolutely agree with you (actually - one of the reasons I'm not rolling over dead yet is because I shudder to think how many newbies will get dinged trying to submit a weapons ban proposal.....and not realize that they missed an all important 5 words)

Absolutely agree with you (actually - one of the reasons I'm not rolling over dead yet is because I shudder to think how many newbies will get dinged trying to submit a weapons ban proposal.....and not realize that they missed an all important 5 words)

Exactly.

It would be helpful if the moderators could give us a feel, months from now, if in fact many newbies are having their proposals deleted because they've not included the word "unnecessary" or a similar thought in their proposal. Because if they are ignoring this, then I'd like to suggest work together to address that situtation.

As an aside, the Governorator is about to come by next door ... they have the bomb sniffing dogs out in force, in addition to a huge number of human officers (including plain closed dudes with funny ear pieces). :) My office window looks out onto the State's newly finished reception mansion.

Greetings.

It seems perfectly clear to us that the clause "member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack" can only be interpreted one way.

1. Member states have the right... any weapons that are necessary
AND
2. Member states have the right... all weapons that are necessary

The first clause allows a state to construct and utilize any components A, B, C... of a defence system. The second allows a state to construct and utilise all the components A, B, C... of that defence system.

Pretty much - though most of the debate focuses on what constitutes necessity and what trumps what in terms of necessity.

Conclusion #1 - individual weapon types for individual states

We can certainly test the necessity of individual weapons without invoking weapon designs and potential attacks or attackers.

Case: 'Helfland' is a landlocked state with no access to the sea which wishes to construct submarines as part of their defence. Necessity is zero. Optionality is a different matter.

Though if you buy the argument that nations can declare their own necessity, Helfland could still deem subs (for whatever reason) necessary for their defense (which I might buy depending on their participation in a wider military alliance - perhaps with their region).

Conclusion #2 - ban against future weaponry

Hence it becomes possible to put up legislation that would ban any weapon which no state finds necessary for defence. The test for this is also simple: obviously, if a state does not possess the weapon but continues to exist as a state, the weapon is unnecessary at the point of legislation.

Therefore, the development to production of ANY new weapons technology after this legislation would be prohibited by such a ban.

Though the ban would have to be implemented in such a way that either A) it makes all FT unnecessary or B) it just bans weapons research (I know someone is laughing out there) due to RP considerations. Another consideration is to take the real world case - Isreal and Iran are probably both working on Nukes. While neither possess them, knowing that the other regional and opposing power may soon have them makes it a necessity that they get that weapon as well for their own defense. That said - the US couldn't have made the same claim in 1919 that they needed nuclear weapons - though they could throughout much of WWII because the Nazis (in particular) were developing Nukes simultaneously - so while they didn't posses it, they would've seen reason to feel a necessity of that weapon for defense.

That said, after that project collapsed, they couldn't make the same argument until the Soviets were visibly developing such a weapon.

Conclusion #3 - right to develop weaponry

Research and development are not included in the UNSA. Hence it is still possible to curtail such if desired.

True

Conclusion #4 - sufficiency and utility

The quantity of weaponry is not specified. 'All weapons' should refer to a specific number of weapons. Otherwise, 'all' would take on certain properties of a variable, rather than an absolute. A weapons cap would be legal to some extent. And what if the weapons are all used? Would a refill be allowed? It is possible to argue for infinite weaponry, but since infinite weaponry is not possible, it cannot be necessary. Hence the number is finite.

Case A: In order to establish parity, 'Helfland' constructs twice as many nuclear warheads as its potentially aggressive neighbours, with a total blast equivalent also approximately doubled. It then seeks to construct five more. At which point does it exceed the 'necessary' amount and thus move from sufficiency to excess?

Case B: In order to deter aggression, 'Helfland' fires ALL its warheads at neighbouring 'Fluxenburg'. 'Fluxenburg' then ceases to exist. Logically, 'Helfland' now has (n-1) potential enemies. Can 'Helfland' argue that since it is now likely to be vilified and condemned, that it needs MORE weapons for defence (as it may now have n+m enemies)? Ad nauseam.

A weapons cap is therefore still legal, since it would establish a finite level - which must already logically exist - and does not ban weapons outright. As to whether it allows a necessary quantity for defence, that is moot.

Again - who or what defines necessity - and can that definition be overruled if it contradicts another statement?

*offers first born as retainer.*
That would be acceptable. We would insist on delivery of said retainer within three working days should it already be available as disposable stock; otherwise, we would be grateful if you would facilitate the generation of such with due alacrity, in which circumstance we will allow for up to nine NSUN months for transfer.

May I take this opportunity to inform you that additional legal services are available for a reasonable premium? Many of our clients have profited greatly from our United Nations Resolution Liabilities, Obliquities, Oversights, Paradoxes, Hitches, Omissions and Lapses Exploitation Service, for instance.

Yours faithfully
J. Fleece, Esq.
Hatchet, Cozen and Associates

I'm almost tempted to guess DLE......almost

I'm almost tempted to guess DLE......almost
No I don't think so, it doesn't appear to be DLE's style.

I'm almost tempted to guess DLE......almost
It's not DLE.

And just keep ignoring that the UNSA never reserved either of the rights you just listed...
Alright, you need to stop truncating my posts so mush that your responses make no sense. I never said that the UNSA reserved these rights. If you'd responded to a larger section of my post, perhaps this would have become clearer.


No it isn't. They are free to frorm their own opinions about defensive necessity all they like, and they are free to utilize any weapons not banned by the UN, but NOWHERE is their right to DECLARE the necessity of a weapon system in any way whatsoever that is legislatively binding on the United Nations and could therefore effect the legality of proposals reserved in ANY peice of UN legislation. Including the UNSA.

Obviously you haven't read Rights and Duties of UN States, which spells in a more role-play sense the Game Mechanics conventions regarding who decides what. Let me quote the relevant portion for you:Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

-snip-

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Since deciding what is necessary hasn't yet been immunized from nations (via UN resolution), they still have jurisdiction over it. Thus, they have the ability to declare any weapons type necessary (and thus protected from banning) until it is specifically stated otherwise (there is an immunity recognized by international law).

No it doesn't. Kindly stop rewriting the resolution to make your argument.

It protects weapons that ARE necessary.

And Until the UN goes over the heads of nations, it is their right to determine what "weapons ARE necessary". UNSA states that weapons which are necessary are legal. Rights and Duties of UN States says that default sovereignty is the national level, and thus that nations have the right to decide "necessity" in the absence of decisions by the UN. Thus, UNSA states that weapons nations determine to be necessary (until UN resolution overpowers them) are protected from banning.

So, you must make an immunization against nations deciding that biological weapons are necessary, otherwise they can still declare them as such (as protected by Rights and Duties of UN States), and get them protected from banning under UNSA--thus making your ban contradict UNSA. I, personally, think it's pretty kind of the mods not to make you write two different proposals (one immunizing nations rights to decide biological weapons' necessity and one banning biological weapons).

The only way they can be considered necessary by the UN is if there is UN legislation establishing their necessity in some way, and with the possible exception of nukes (owing to the Nuclear Armaments resolution) this is not the case for any weapon system.
No, that's not the case. You have it backwards. The national government is the default authority in the area of making decisions--superceded only when the UN puts its foot in. Nations have make the decisions of weapons being "necessary" until the UN restricts this right. The application of UNSA is in the hands of nations, until acted upon by UN resolutions.




You're missing the point of my argument.

I apologize for not really responding to your points. My time to respond and read this has been limited, and I hadn't thoroughly enough read through your posts to respond.

If we were to assume that both the original draft of the Bio Weapons Ban and UNSA were in place, would a national law stating that bio-weapons are necessary for the defense of that nation overrule the international law of bio-weapons being banned, or would the ban require through contradiction that the nation change its law? I think precedent says the nation has to change its law.

I know this is for the mods, but my opinion is this: This would be a sort of 'doomsday' situation in my eyes, a paradox in UN rules. Nations' right to determine necessity of weapons is still there (as no UN resolution has revoked it yet), so the UNSA can effectively be used as a shield against the banning of any weapons type--but nations are still told to conform to a ban of a certain weapons type. This situation, I believe, is what the mods are trying to avoid in their rulings on post-UNSA weapons bans.

I think, in an RP sense, what would happen be determined largely by how much oversight one assumes the UN has over nations. I like to think that the NSUN works a lot like the real UN in its oversight--with courts and authorities and commissions, etc.--except it enforces its resolutions like national laws, rather than international prescriptions (I personally think that when there is no RP, the magical creatures idea is perfectly fitting; but when actual RP os involved, I think the application of UN resolutions should be more realistic). By that view of the UN, I imagine there'd be a court hearing when Powerhungry Chipmunks passed the law to begin manufacturing biological weapons, as well as threats of trade embargoes and effected trade embargoes.

Who would win the court case? PC's lawyers would argue that they still have the right, by default, to determine what weapons are necessary for defense. And that PC determines that biological weapons are necessary, so it has a right to produce those under UNSA. The prosecution (UN Prosecutor General? Grand Moff of the UN? World-to-national Government Inquisitor?) would argue that the biological weapons ban explicitly states that I cannot produce these weapons. And that it has the more direct language.

In the end I think it would matter which resolution were passed first. Then, I hope that Grandii Poopah of Nationalitoria Claimus what-see-whose-it would direct the UN legislature to correct the oversight by either removing the ban, or revoking the right of my nations to determine biological weapons as "necessary for defense" (which would make him an "activist judge", of course).

Either way, it'd be a fun RP, I think. I mean, obviously it'd have more characters a little bit intrigue--as well as a gruesome plot for world domination involving paper shredders and month old Mozzarella--just like any good RP. I just think it’s be pretty fun because it'd be based on UN resolutions and actual decisions and actual nations (Mine! :D).

No I don't think so, it doesn't appear to be DLE's style.

It isn't remotely her style of post.

Though I now *know* who it is (though I had to peak before making my third guess). Here is a hint --> look up my nation.
:D

Though I now *know* who it is
Heh. You think so, do ya?

Obviously you haven't read Rights and Duties of UN States, which spells in a more role-play sense the Game Mechanics conventions regarding who decides what. Let me quote the relevant portion for you: ...

That is an interesting example, because if you go further down in Frisbeeteria's resolution you'll see the following:


Section III: The Role of the United Nations:

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

There are three points I'd like to make, though Frisbeeteria is obviously the authority on this particular subject.

First, when he wrote that resolution, he intentionally wrote it as a double edged sword. You can quote Section I, Article 2 in support of national sovereignty, but in the same document I can then point out Section III, Article 10 in support of international federalism -- i.e. national / domestic considerations are less than international will.

Second, the argument presented here is something along the lines that nations should have the write to choose ... but clearly the spirit of Section III, Article 10 is to suggest that the UN reserves the right to override these choices. This is an idea that is implied (though not directly) by numerous moderation replies when answering questions about the NS FAQ.

Now, I'm of the opinion that UN members can actually not be in compliance with UN resolutions. That the policies suggested in UN resolutions are but recommendations ... so Article 2 or Artile 10 of this resolution are not "game mechanics" or NationStates rules, with two exceptions: (1) resolutions can't duplicate or directly contradict one-another, and (2) the moderators get to decide as liberally or conservatively as they like what duplications / contradictions are.

In this case, we have been told we have a loophole ... we just have to state somewhere in any new Global Disarmament resolution something that *hopefull* will convince the game moderators that the weapon being restricted is unnecessary to defense.

Personally, I think the moderators are going to be a bit subjective in their application of these arguments, but I also think if we just run things by them a few times first and listen to whatever suggestions they have before submitting and a few exceptions will squeeze by (compromising the "case law") which they actually do try to use in their decision making, that the loophole will become more of a front door -- i.e. not a problem. That and newbie mistake fatique will eventually wear thin.

My third point in bringing up the Rights and Duties Articles 2 and 10 was to point out that I've always felt that Fris authored Rights and Duties to be more of a Roleplaying aid. He worked hard to make something that sounded like a UN Charter, but that was consistent with the Jan. 2004 Enodian interpetation of the UN rules. His resolution didn't change anything, nor has there been a single example of an appeal or request of proposal deletion based on the language used in Rights and Duties *to my knowledge*. Fris, Cog, and the NSUN Lawers might be able to correct me on that. ;)

When I advocated that the United Nations Security Act was "legal", I thought it was going to be treated like the Rights and Duties resolution. Window dressing. A chance for experienced UN members to *politely* request that newbies include preambulatory clauses (their justification for a Global Disarmament resolution) that vaguely hint that weapons of mass destruction or even pop guns are unnecessary, but that ultimately the final vote would lie in the hands of _us_, the UN members.

I'm still disappointed (and disagree) with the current moderation ruling, as I think this is the first time that a resolution is so CLEARLY being used to require *vague* clauses be included in *all* future resolutions in a single category. This was not what I had read in the original moderation discussions on this resolution, for example, Frisbeeteria (then only a forum moderator) pointed out that he felt the United Nations Security Act was illegal for *2* specific words that implied a restriction on the content of *all* Global Disarmament resolutions. Obviously his opinion was heard, but voted against ... and while I feel we should focus now on the "necessary" and "unnecessary" debate, I seriously think the best (though risky to players) solution will be to just exploit the loop-hole we've been given.

Heh. You think so, do ya?

Yes. If you'll please hand me the "Confidential Card" ... as I think it was done in the "UN forum", with the "newly created and game text enhanced puppet", by ...

*slowly pulls out the third card*

I've been reading this thread for a while, but refraining from saying anything until now... but if we could all look at the title of the first post by Reformentia: "Regarding my Queued UN proposal (game mods)..."

It makes me wonder why there have been so many posts by non-game mods... though I dont know if this UN proposal carries the same rules as moderation issues, maybe this belonged in the UN forum in the first place? I don't know, just asking something I thought should be addressed.

Since this has gotten all the moderation response it's likely to get,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg Moderation to UN

I've always felt that Fris authored Rights and Duties to be more of a Roleplaying aid. He worked hard to make something that sounded like a UN Charter, but that was consistent with the Jan. 2004 Enodian interpetation of the UN rules.
This is pretty darn accurate. I didn't join NS until it had been running for over a year, so I didn't get to play those first few dozen proposals. My intent was to define something that worked as a substitute for a UN Charter, or at least to define in in-character terms what had to be observed in out-of-character terms. Rather than constantly having to refer back to the FAQ, there was a resolution that defined in "tight" terms what the FAQ defined loosely.

I was one of those ardent National Soverigntists, and I still am. However, anyone reading that resolution and thinking that it enriches the UN's recognition of National Sovereignty ... hasn't read the whole thing. Max handed the keys to the kingdom to the UN. All I did was add a gift bow.

I haven't memorized all the arguments in this thread. Hell, I can't make out the point of half of the long posts before falling asleep. All I know is that there is suddenly a need for rules lawyers that didn't used to exist.

I enjoy picking proposals apart as much as the next guy, up to a point. I think we've passed that point, and it's not as much fun as it used to be around here.

Since this has gotten all the moderation response it's likely to get,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg Moderation to UN

*frowns*

Guess I'm not getting an answer to my question.

PC - I'll get back to you in the morning.

Guess I'm not getting an answer to my question.

PC - I'll get back to you in the morning.

As long as new points are brought up, there are enough people reading this, that answer or no, I honestly feel the discussion will have important implications for future UN decisions. (read: the answer is between the lines now) ;)

I haven't memorized all the arguments in this thread. Hell, I can't make out the point of half of the long posts before falling asleep. All I know is that there is suddenly a need for rules lawyers that didn't used to exist.

I enjoy picking proposals apart as much as the next guy, up to a point. I think we've passed that point, and it's not as much fun as it used to be around here.
I agree. I think we (and Bahgum) started playing within a week of each other; it seemed then that I was usually arguing on a conceptual rather than legal basis.

I, too, have found that the technical nature of resolutions and proposals has been brought out and magnified recently. There seems more argument about what is and isn't legal than what is and isn't "right" or justifiable for the UN to do.

UNSA as cause
A lot of this has centered around the UNSA. I think this resolution is the major culprit. UNSA has inspired a lot of people to misunderstand the current rules, and has slightly shifted the way we look at proposals (since UNSA guarantees nations rights to decisions rather than strictly imposing the UN's rule on all member nations). It is misunderstanding of UNSA that has brought about this topic, as well as a lot of the legalistic debate in past weeks. As such, I think the "legal phase" of the UN will pass and as new resolutions which are less misunderstood there will be less need for UN lawyers.

Age of UN as cause
However, there is another rising problem in the UN, which is giving rise to 'rules lawyering': too many resolutions. We have over 100 resolutions. It might be said that the UN has addressed almost every critical issue in the current international sphere. As proposals keep becoming resolutions, this number will only increase. This means more and more need for us (proposal authors as well as regular UN members) to know previous resolutions, and understand what their legal effects are. And as the UN addresses more and more of the major issues, more and more members will feel that there is no need for new proposals, that the UN has already touched on everything it needs to, that the UN is largely irrelevant

Possible Solutions
Repeal and Replace gaining mainstream status
I think the solution to this is what I've been advocating since the repeal of "Education for All". There needs to be a willingness and a desire to look to past resolutions to replace them--just as much as there's a desire to pass brand spanking new ones. I'm trying to set the precedent (through the planned replacement of my own two resolutions: NSoT and The Nuclear Terrorism Act).

My theory is that if resolution authors fear the dreaded "R"-word (repeal) less, and new proposal authors are just as willing, if not more willing, to re-address old issues which they feel have not gotten enough coverage, we can slow the UN's movement into irrelevancy. The more replacements we pass, the more spread out the UN's addressing of new issues (and using them up, too).

There are flaws to my theory, of course. There's still a finite number of issues addressed by previous legislation; it is much harder to produce an effective repeal AND replacement campaign (as Reformentia can surely attest to); and, well, I think it'll be pretty hard to convince resolution authors not to fear a repeal and replacement (even if I demonstrate it twice successfully).

The bridling of proposal authors' enforcement (by themselves of course)
Perhaps another solution to slow the UN's creep into stagnation is Mikitivity's view of UN resolutions: as international recommendations more than hard, fast rules. If those who feel the UN must impose its will on member nations can be sedated (I propose we use bourbon for this), then the UN can likely address issues it's never addressed before due to too much division--and more advice oriented resolutions limit future proposals very little.


Bottom line: pieces the UN pie are vanishing like snack cakes at tea time. We need to restore the old pieces of pie, and present new ones, as well as encourage proposal authors to nibble rather than devour their respective issues. If we want the UN pie to persist much longer, anyway.

Alright, you need to stop truncating my posts so mush that your responses make no sense. I never said that the UNSA reserved these rights. If you'd responded to a larger section of my post, perhaps this would have become clearer.

I'd like to suggest we start noting both points we agree and disagree with - because this is starting to get out of hand

Obviously you haven't read Rights and Duties of UN States, which spells in a more role-play sense the Game Mechanics conventions regarding who decides what. Let me quote the relevant portion for you:
Since deciding what is necessary hasn't yet been immunized from nations (via UN resolution), they still have jurisdiction over it. Thus, they have the ability to declare any weapons type necessary (and thus protected from banning) until it is specifically stated otherwise (there is an immunity recognized by international law).

Already addressed

And Until the UN goes over the heads of nations, it is their right to determine what "weapons ARE necessary". UNSA states that weapons which are necessary are legal. Rights and Duties of UN States says that default sovereignty is the national level, and thus that nations have the right to decide "necessity" in the absence of decisions by the UN. Thus, UNSA states that weapons nations determine to be necessary (until UN resolution overpowers them) are protected from banning.

So, you must make an immunization against nations deciding that biological weapons are necessary, otherwise they can still declare them as such (as protected by Rights and Duties of UN States), and get them protected from banning under UNSA--thus making your ban contradict UNSA. I, personally, think it's pretty kind of the mods not to make you write two different proposals (one immunizing nations rights to decide biological weapons' necessity and one banning biological weapons).

Again, my argument....

No, that's not the case. You have it backwards. The national government is the default authority in the area of making decisions--superceded only when the UN puts its foot in. Nations have make the decisions of weapons being "necessary" until the UN restricts this right. The application of UNSA is in the hands of nations, until acted upon by UN resolutions.

Also my argument....

I apologize for not really responding to your points. My time to respond and read this has been limited, and I hadn't thoroughly enough read through your posts to respond.

Fair enough

I know this is for the mods, but my opinion is this: This would be a sort of 'doomsday' situation in my eyes, a paradox in UN rules. Nations' right to determine necessity of weapons is still there (as no UN resolution has revoked it yet), so the UNSA can effectively be used as a shield against the banning of any weapons type--but nations are still told to conform to a ban of a certain weapons type. This situation, I believe, is what the mods are trying to avoid in their rulings on post-UNSA weapons bans.

It certainly does add a really weird level of complexity - but as I said, I feel it has, to some extent, a level of precedence involved.

I think, in an RP sense, what would happen be determined largely by how much oversight one assumes the UN has over nations. I like to think that the NSUN works a lot like the real UN in its oversight--with courts and authorities and commissions, etc.--except it enforces its resolutions like national laws, rather than international prescriptions (I personally think that when there is no RP, the magical creatures idea is perfectly fitting; but when actual RP os involved, I think the application of UN resolutions should be more realistic). By that view of the UN, I imagine there'd be a court hearing when Powerhungry Chipmunks passed the law to begin manufacturing biological weapons, as well as threats of trade embargoes and effected trade embargoes.

If that were true - we wouldn't be required to tighten up the loopholes to the extent that DLE would need to drop a nuke on it to find just a linguistic loophole. I'd LOVE the UN to be set up that way, but it is not the case. Regardless, that still doesn't address my issue - as the courts would have to realize that a dual ban and protection of necessity of weapons means that a weapon must be unnecessary for defense.

Who would win the court case? PC's lawyers would argue that they still have the right, by default, to determine what weapons are necessary for defense. And that PC determines that biological weapons are necessary, so it has a right to produce those under UNSA. The prosecution (UN Prosecutor General? Grand Moff of the UN? World-to-national Government Inquisitor?) would argue that the biological weapons ban explicitly states that I cannot produce these weapons. And that it has the more direct language.

And again - I note that precedent would suggest that Nations must bend to the UN, not the other way.

In the end I think it would matter which resolution were passed first. Then, I hope that Grandii Poopah of Nationalitoria Claimus what-see-whose-it would direct the UN legislature to correct the oversight by either removing the ban, or revoking the right of my nations to determine biological weapons as "necessary for defense" (which would make him an "activist judge", of course).

My argument requires no consideration of which came first.

Either way, it'd be a fun RP, I think. I mean, obviously it'd have more characters a little bit intrigue--as well as a gruesome plot for world domination involving paper shredders and month old Mozzarella--just like any good RP. I just think it’s be pretty fun because it'd be based on UN resolutions and actual decisions and actual nations (Mine! :D).

LOL

Anyways - I thought I should just make a minor note (expanding on my earlier argument surrounding Abortion):

Ok - so UN passes resolution 61 - which guarantees abortion. However, Nation X passed a law where it declared that a fetus is a human being upon the moment of contraception - and thus, you would be commiting a murder if you killed it. Though arguably, you could say you are "Euthanising" the fetus (guaranteed by resolution 43), but what if that resolution wasn't there and Euthanasia was illegal in that country. In fact, what if they made it illegal to perform ANY operation where the end result is the death of a living human?

If they did this before resolution 61 was passed, who would have to bend to whom?

Ok - so UN passes resolution 61 - which guarantees abortion. However, Nation X passed a law where it declared that a fetus is a human being upon the moment of contraception - and thus, you would be commiting a murder if you killed it. Though arguably, you could say you are "Euthanising" the fetus (guaranteed by resolution 43), but what if that resolution wasn't there and Euthanasia was illegal in that country. In fact, what if they made it illegal to perform ANY operation where the end result is the death of a living human?

If they did this before resolution 61 was passed, who would have to bend to whom?

Interesting that you should bring up these two resolutions, as the Abortion resolution is actually an impediment (sp?) to my and Hirota's tabled "Condemning Infanticide" proposal ... I wanted to make sure parents aren't killing little girls prior to birth too ... but I've not yet found a way around it.

Since this discussion has taken up the issue of big picture (conceptual) vs. tiny detail (legal) debates, I'd like to suggest that it is part a fear on my part that the moderation staff has gotten *more* involved in policing the proposal queue, that has *encouraged* the legal styled debates over the conceptual. Two short-term solutions might be to enhance roleplaying when debating resolutions (though proposals legal advice is still welcomed in my POV) and maybe look for more examples (be real world or straight out of our RPed Wiki entries) ... both might spice things up. :)

I'd LOVE the UN to be set up that way, but it is not the case. Regardless, that still doesn't address my issue - as the courts would have to realize that a dual ban and protection of necessity of weapons means that a weapon must be unnecessary for defense.
Well, in a game mechanics way the UN certainly isn't like that. The compliance ministry tells everyone what to do and all nations must comply with the resolutions. But I'm pretty sure there's room for role-playing a more complex UN if players have the gumption to do so. Stephistan role-played having the UN headquarters in her nation, while there was no Game Mechanics grounds for that. Also the "Sovereign UN Territory" (or somesuch nation) role-plays itself as the UN, with army and all--even though there is no actual game mechanics UN army, et al.




The UNSA defends all weapons types that "are necessary for defense" and leaves the definition of that up to nations or future UN resolutions. Certainly, alone, a national decision regarding biological weapons does not have a chance against an international decision against biological weapons. But, since the UNSA allows for weapons "necessary for defense" to be protected, this national decision of necessity would have UN resolution weight behind it, which would make this seem one of the rare cases in which a national decision could override a resolution.

Actually it isn’t even that. This is an example of national decisions directing international law’s application, which then would ‘override a resolution’ (by the law of contradiction).

And again - I note that precedent would suggest that Nations must bend to the UN, not the other way. Let's say that UNSA were never written, discussed, or passed. My nation would have to bend its will to Refromentia's bioweapons ban without question--regardless of how necessary my nation identified biological weapons. I completely agree in that.

My nation decides bioweapons are necessary and produces them---->The UN decides I cannot produce bioweapons----> my decision of their necessity is irrelevant and I have no right to produce bioweapons.
But, since UNSA has passed, my national decision of necessity concerning biological weapons is given international weight, and bioweapons are protected from banning on an international level by the UNSA--according to my decision of their necessity.

My nation's decision of necessity of bioweapons--->directs UNSA to apply to bioweapons--->blocks bans of bioweapons The UNSA protects from international legislation whatever weapons are necessary. So my national decision regarding bioweapons' necessity has international weight by proxy (the UNSA). But, there is no UN resolution protecting my right to decide necessity. So, my decisions on necessity are still free-game for resolutions to override me on. Again, as you say, that national decision would have to bend to international resolution, were it legislated.

UN Resolution blocks my decision of necessity of bioweapons---> My nation cannot decide necessity of bioweapons--->UNSA does not apply-->bans of bioweapons are legal. In this case I'd have no right to decide necessity of bioweapons because the UN says they're unnecessary, so the UNSA cannot apply to bioweapons. Bioweapons are bannable.


EDIT: So, in the end, my decisions of necessity are fully able to be overridden by the UN. But, until they are, those decisions have the weight of international law through UNSA and block the bans which would contradict them.

Oh dear. A few points...

1. I am not the player behind NSUN Lawyers, for anybody who was thinking it.

2. The "necessary for defense" loophole was not the one I was hoping people would use. In fact I must admit that I'm a little annoyed by the use of that loophole rather than the other more legitimate loophole I left which would not require the sort of rules lawyering going on here.

3. As far as I can tell, PC is correct that it is currently up to the individual nations to decide what weapons are necessary to defense, but the UN could easily override that decision-making power. Of course, I'm sure that most nations who desire to do so will simply find a loophole in the legislation that attempts to override their authority and render the attempt largely useless.

4. We always pay a price when trying to use loopholes whether it's on a national or international level, and the more we use loopholes the more convoluted and ridiculous our legal system becomes. We are free to take advantage of loopholes, but keep in mind the price we have to pay for it.

Well, in a game mechanics way the UN certainly isn't like that. The compliance ministry tells everyone what to do and all nations must comply with the resolutions. But I'm pretty sure there's room for role-playing a more complex UN if players have the gumption to do so. Stephistan role-played having the UN headquarters in her nation, while there was no Game Mechanics grounds for that. Also the "Sovereign UN Territory" (or somesuch nation) role-plays itself as the UN, with army and all--even though there is no actual game mechanics UN army, et al.

Yeah - but DLE gunned me down the last time I tried to use your specific interpretation.....


The UNSA defends all weapons types that "are necessary for defense" and leaves the definition of that up to nations or future UN resolutions. Certainly, alone, a national decision regarding biological weapons does not have a chance against an international decision against biological weapons. But, since the UNSA allows for weapons "necessary for defense" to be protected, this national decision of necessity would have UN resolution weight behind it, which would make this seem one of the rare cases in which a national decision could override a resolution.

Actually it isn’t even that. This is an example of national decisions directing international law’s application, which then would ‘override a resolution’ (by the law of contradiction).

Here's where we don't see eye to eye (I think we both agree on the point about contradiction)

1) The resolution doesn't state it guarantees a nation's right to define a weapon as being necessary. It guarantees that any weapons that are declared necessary are protected. However, that doesn't explicitly protect state's rights.

2) A nation is required to comply with a UN resolution. So instead of the proposed resolution contradicting with the national law, I believe that the national law would instead be contradicting wih the proposed resolution. Why is there a difference? The nation is required to bend to the UN, not the other way (I think that argument has been beaten to death so I won't prove it again). So, I'm not required to take into consideration whether or not the nation has deemed a weapon necessary - since it is not guaranteed in international law - they are required to take into consideration what the resolutions say.

God - I'm having a hard time wording this.... especially without repeating myself 30 times.

If the UN were to declare a weapon necessary, then it would be unbannable - because UN law has to consider UN law. The UNSA ONLY guarantees that no weapon that is deemed necessary is bannable - but does not state that we are required to consider nation's law on whether that weapon is "necessary" or not. Perhaps, at the national level, it can be used to screw over the next government by passing legislation saying the weapon is necessary to stop the next government from ceasing production.

Let's say that UNSA were never written, discussed, or passed. My nation would have to bend its will to Refromentia's bioweapons ban without question--regardless of how necessary my nation identified biological weapons. I completely agree in that.

My nation decides bioweapons are necessary and produces them---->The UN decides I cannot produce bioweapons----> my decision of their necessity is irrelevant and I have no right to produce bioweapons.
But, since UNSA has passed, my national decision of necessity concerning biological weapons is given international weight, and bioweapons are protected from banning on an international level by the UNSA--according to my decision of their necessity.

My nation's decision of necessity of bioweapons--->directs UNSA to apply to bioweapons--->blocks bans of bioweapons The UNSA protects from international legislation whatever weapons are necessary. So my national decision regarding bioweapons' necessity has international weight by proxy (the UNSA). But, there is no UN resolution protecting my right to decide necessity. So, my decisions on necessity are still free-game for resolutions to override me on. Again, as you say, that national decision would have to bend to international resolution, were it legislated.

UN Resolution blocks my decision of necessity of bioweapons---> My nation cannot decide necessity of bioweapons--->UNSA does not apply-->bans of bioweapons are legal. In this case I'd have no right to decide necessity of bioweapons because the UN says they're unnecessary, so the UNSA cannot apply to bioweapons. Bioweapons are bannable.


EDIT: So, in the end, my decisions of necessity are fully able to be overridden by the UN. But, until they are, those decisions have the weight of international law through UNSA and block the bans which would contradict them.

Sorry - couldn't respond to the rest - Lunch break is over

Obviously you haven't read Rights and Duties of UN States, which spells in a more role-play sense the Game Mechanics conventions regarding who decides what. Let me quote the relevant portion for you:

Actually, I have read it.

Since deciding what is necessary hasn't yet been immunized from nations (via UN resolution), they still have jurisdiction over it.

They have jurisdiction over it LOCALLY. Within their nation. Unless and until it is overridden by UN legislation.

They do NOT have jurisdiction over what the UN considers to be necessary and it is obviously the UN that has to consider a weapon necessary in order for a weapons ban proposal to be ruled as illegally attempting to restrict use of a necessary weapon.

There is no way that 'Rights and Duties' is saying that individual nations get to hold the legality of UN proposals hostage to their personal, unlegislated, whims of definition.

"I declare that my one single nation personally defines this word in such a manner that this proposal becomes illegal, strike it from the list!" --- I don't think so.

Thus, they have the ability to declare any weapons type necessary

As far as they're concerned, yes.

(and thus protected from banning) until it is specifically stated otherwise (there is an immunity recognized by international law).

No.

And Until the UN goes over the heads of nations, it is their right to determine what "weapons ARE necessary".

Until the UN goes over their heads it is indeed their right to determine FOR THEMSELVES what weapons they will personally consider necessary.

It is not thier right to determine FOR THE UN what weapons THE UN will consider necessary.

And if a weapon isn't considered necessary BY THE UN there is no grounds for a ban of it to be ruled illegal. The only weaponry that possibly qualifes there is nukes.

We are perplexed and perturbed at the insinuation that we are in some way a front for another nation. We have, as yet, received no fee for such services and are consequently unable to act in such a capacity.

J. Fleece, Esq.
Hatchet, Cozen and Associates

Ok - now that I have A) time and B) a working page on jolt, time to get back to your post....

Let's say that UNSA were never written, discussed, or passed. My nation would have to bend its will to Refromentia's bioweapons ban without question--regardless of how necessary my nation identified biological weapons. I completely agree in that.

My nation decides bioweapons are necessary and produces them---->The UN decides I cannot produce bioweapons----> my decision of their necessity is irrelevant and I have no right to produce bioweapons.

Agreed


But, since UNSA has passed, my national decision of necessity concerning biological weapons is given international weight, and bioweapons are protected from banning on an international level by the UNSA--according to my decision of their necessity.

Disagree - because no international law gives you that right to determine necessity.

My nation's decision of necessity of bioweapons--->directs UNSA to apply to bioweapons--->blocks bans of bioweapons

The UNSA protects from international legislation whatever weapons are necessary. So my national decision regarding bioweapons' necessity has international weight by proxy (the UNSA). But, there is no UN resolution protecting my right to decide necessity. So, my decisions on necessity are still free-game for resolutions to override me on. Again, as you say, that national decision would have to bend to international resolution, were it legislated.

I still don't see where in the UNSA it says that NATIONS have the right to determine necessity. If the UN declared all weapons to be necessary, fine. But the UN doesn't have to bend to a nation - and the UNSA doesn't tell the UN to bend to a nation IMHO.

UN Resolution blocks my decision of necessity of bioweapons---> My nation cannot decide necessity of bioweapons--->UNSA does not apply-->bans of bioweapons are legal.

In this case I'd have no right to decide necessity of bioweapons because the UN says they're unnecessary, so the UNSA cannot apply to bioweapons. Bioweapons are bannable.

Alright - we're agreed on that. However - your claim is that your nation is given the right to decide necessity while my claim is that your nation's determination of necessity - even with the UNSA - does not determine how the UN acts. I still don't see any UN resolution (including UNSA) that gives you the nation the power to declare something such that it overrules the UN

EDIT: So, in the end, my decisions of necessity are fully able to be overridden by the UN. But, until they are, those decisions have the weight of international law through UNSA and block the bans which would contradict them.

Your stating that they have to be directly overwritten - but can they be implicitly overwritten? If not - why?

Disagree - because no international law gives you that right to determine necessity.Nations have it automatically, as a game mechanics function: Your nation can decide whatever it wants that is not decided by a previous UN resolutions (daily issues, regional arrangements, etc.). The RP proof is “Rights and Duties of UN States” which confirms that anything not specifically legislated on by UN resolutions is the right of UN nations to decide until further notice (it also confirms the UN’s right to override those same national decisions).
I still don't see where in the UNSA it says that NATIONS have the right to determine necessity. If the UN declared all weapons to be necessary, fine. But the UN doesn't have to bend to a nation - and the UNSA doesn't tell the UN to bend to a nation IMHO.
It doesn't have to say that UN nations have the right to determine necessity in the UNSA because it’s the default setting for nations to make decisions not spelled out by the UN (which is why Texan Hotrodders designed the resolution the way he did – without its own definition of necessity).

This right of nations to interpret fuzzy areas has been in discussion since my first resolution, “The Nuclear Terrorism Act”. Very early on, TilEnca (bless that nations’ retired souls) asked me something to the effect of “who decides what are and aren’t ‘known terrorist organizations’?” After thinking and sort of hedging for a while I realized (and those in the forum brought me to the realization) the only answer can be 'the individual nation'. There are no criteria set for the UN to identify "known terrorist organizations" nor is there any mandate for the UN to do so given in The Nuclear Terrorism Act. Thus the UN cannot decide this for nations, and it is decided by individual nations.

Similarly, individual nations decide what is “necessary” in the UNSA. The only difference is that the definition of what is necessary has international implications as what weapon types are protected by the UNSA hinges on what is and isn't "necessary" -- a definition which is only coming from nations until the UN says otherwise.
Alright - we're agreed on that. However - your claim is that your nation is given the right to decide necessity while my claim is that your nation's determination of necessity - even with the UNSA - does not determine how the UN acts. I still don't see any UN resolution (including UNSA) that gives you the nation the power to declare something such that it overrules the UN
I can’t imagine it being anything else. Until the UN determines what is and isn't "necessary" the only decision out there – anywhere – is that coming from nations. If national decisions about necessity don't make up what "is necessary" (until the UN says otherwise) I'm not sure what would, as there's no UN decision on the matter. How else would we define what “is” necessary except by what is declared necessary by government – be it national (default) or international (as resolutions take that right away from nations)?

It’s clear from Rights and Duties that UN nations have the right to decide necessity for themselves, (in lieu of UN decision). That’s the only definition of what is necessary out there. Again, I can't imagine what other set of data the UN would use to determine which weapons UNSA applies to. Your stating that they have to be directly overwritten - but can they be implicitly overwritten? If not - why?
Because they are protected by Rights and Duties until they are expressly overwritten. The idea is that the fundamental unit of Nationstates is the nation. The UN is beyond that fundamental unit, and exists (and enforces its will) only in the place it is specifically stated that it does so. Nations have whatever gray area, indecision, or opening the UN does not explicitly state for itself: something like the US Constitution, in that nations have whatever rights the federal government isn't given.

I could've sworn someone already took that argument out to the toolshed and beat it - but fine - I'm going to expand beyond his argument.

1) The UNSA does NOT state that you have jurisdiction over anything not EXPLICITLY mandated by the UN:


Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


Your nation has the right to exercise any actions within your border provided it COMPLIES WITH UN LAW.


Immunity
(snip)
3 Law.

1. Exemption from normal legal duties, penalties, or liabilities, granted to a special group of people: legislative immunity.
2. Exemption from legal prosecution, often granted a witness in exchange for self-incriminating testimony.


So (more or less) it reads "with exception to the exemptions recognized by UN law" - which actually kinda doesn't make a huge heck of a lot of sense - but fine, I'll work with it.

It does not say that the UN has to SPECIFICALLY legislate on the matter at hand (else my second scenario with the declaration of the fetus being a human being would permit one to ban abortions/infaticide as iirc Mikivity - sorry if it wasn't - pointed out was ruled illegal....), but is actually says that the nation has to BOW DOWN TO UN will should the UN have made legislation, but at all other times, it has the right to govern itself (so my nation can't tell your nation what to do without your nation having the UN guaranteed right of telling me to F off).

So I would argue it actually forces you to comply with UN resolutions, rather than guarantee your "soverign right" to govern over the UN (as you and others were suggesting)


Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.


This is the other relevant Section posted by Intl Red Cross (did I get the right? No I'm not researching the names right now). In my eyes it guarantees your right to godmod if that is your choice, and states that your excuse for refusing to comply with the UN cannot be "because my laws conflict with the UN's law, I don't have to follow the UN". It can be "I don't choose to because I don't believe in that" - in which case you'll get called godmodding, but there's downsides to all perspectives - or you can say "this law has this loophole so I will do this" in which case you could either get called a godmodder (if the loophole is less than legit - which I think DLE skits the edges of sometimes) or you get praised for your work at finding loopholes (or in trouble with the fellow players who liked the sound resolution before).

IF the Rights and Duties did what you claim it did, I could understand your argument. However, I don't see it in here (so yes, we just have slowly gotten from the bio-weapons ban to the UNSA to the question of jurisdiction to now discussing the actual application of Rights and Duties....this is turning into a rather fun legal argument).

I guess to some extent, our arguments are based upon some fundamental assumptions - so if we slowly work our way back to where these fundamental assumptions are based, perhaps we can find the actual answer..... or we'll get into a metaphysical debate - at which point we'll have to call it a draw.

So (more or less) it reads "with exception to the exemptions recognized by UN law" - which actually kinda doesn't make a huge heck of a lot of sense - but fine, I'll work with it.
Every time it's been brought up in discussion before, that has been interpreted as referring to UN resolutions--exemptions to national authority. There are no other UN decisions made but resolutions (except possibly Admin Game Mechanics changes, such as what percentage of delegates are needed to reach quorum; but those don't restrict or extend national or UN sovereignty).
It does not say that the UN has to SPECIFICALLY legislate on the matter at hand (else my second scenario with the declaration of the fetus being a human being would permit one to ban abortions/infaticide as iirc Mikivity - sorry if it wasn't - pointed out was ruled illegal....), but is actually says that the nation has to BOW DOWN TO UN will should the UN have made legislation, but at all other times, it has the right to govern itself (so my nation can't tell your nation what to do without your nation having the UN guaranteed right of telling me to F off).Yup, that's pretty much what I've been saying. Nations must comply with resolutions, but they have sovereignty everywhere else. I'm not so certain your proposal declaring a fetus a human being would be illegal. In January, I brought some rough "Partial Birth Abortion" legislation through the proposal list several times (at one time massing around 100 approvals, too) before I decided to put the idea back on the shelf for a time. No mods deleted the proposal, even though there were ample opportunities.

Obviously there are limitations to this "explicitness" rule (that the UN must explicitly rule on things for it to be enforced). There's no way a proposal or nation would get away with saying "we hereby define 'the' as meaning 'not enforced by the UN' so we can disobey every resolution...". But these limitations are fuzzy. How explicit must the UN be? How much assumptions are made about the meanings of words? And so on. There are no definite answers, except maybe those principles set forth in Rights and Duties (which as Mikitivity said, is sort of like the flesh that covers the bones of the UN): that nations have sovereignty in every area not ruled on by the UN. Necessity of weapons for defense (as you and Reformentia have pointed out multiple times) has not been ruled on. It is still a national prevue. That is, until a Biological Weapons Ban takes it away.

Which brings me to a beef I have with Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban. It doesn't take away nations' right to decide necessity. To have an effect, a clause must be in the active section of the proposal (typically the numbered section). The "non-necessity" clause in Reformentia's proposal is in the preambulary clauses--which have no effect on nations' right to determine things, and are nothing more than glorified campaign ads. If a weapons ban is to be legal according to the UNSA/Rights and Duties interpretation I'm pointing, the "non-necessity" clause must be in the active section rather than the preamble (it should be "DECLARES bioweapons unnecessary for defense" rather than "DECLARING bioweapons unnecessary for defense.")

It would be a tragedy if it so happened that this made Reformentia's proposal again be removed from the queue. A great tragedy, actually, but not one that was unavoidable...


So I would argue it actually forces you to comply with UN resolutions, rather than guarantee your "soverign right" to govern over the UN (as you and others were suggesting)
It does both. It defines the line between national and international from both sides ('nations have these rights; the UN has these rights', etc.).



This is the other relevant Section posted by Intl Red Cross (did I get the right? No I'm not researching the names right now). In my eyes it guarantees your right to godmod if that is your choice, and states that your excuse for refusing to comply with the UN cannot be "because my laws conflict with the UN's law, I don't have to follow the UN". It can be "I don't choose to because I don't believe in that" - in which case you'll get called godmodding, but there's downsides to all perspectives - or you can say "this law has this loophole so I will do this" in which case you could either get called a godmodder (if the loophole is less than legit - which I think DLE skits the edges of sometimes) or you get praised for your work at finding loopholes (or in trouble with the fellow players who liked the sound resolution before).Yup, all this does is set up the opposition (that the UN has the right to overrule any national law) to national sovereignty. Like I've always argued, Rights and Duties sets up a balance between UN and national power. The UN has the ability to rule over nations' power in every area, and nations have sovereignty over every area not yet ruled on by the UN.


IF the Rights and Duties did what you claim it did, I could understand your argument. However, I don't see it in here It's there. You've admitted my argument was correct right here:[Rights and Duties] actually says that the nation has to BOW DOWN TO UN will should the UN have made legislation, but at all other times, it has the right to govern itself Which means that my nation has sovereignty over an area the UN hasn't decided upon--say, necessity of weapons for defense. And what, "is" necessary cannot be based on any other criteria, as the UNSA (or any other resolution) does not explicitly give the UN the power to decide it (though future resolutions certainly can--and some must to be legal).

Every time it's been brought up in discussion before, that has been interpreted as referring to UN resolutions--exemptions to national authority. There are no other UN decisions made but resolutions (except possibly Admin Game Mechanics changes, such as what percentage of delegates are needed to reach quorum; but those don't restrict or extend national or UN sovereignty).

Yeah - that was the closest thing to logical I could come up with so I'm not surprised.

Yup, that's pretty much what I've been saying. Nations must comply with resolutions, but they have sovereignty everywhere else. I'm not so certain your proposal declaring a fetus a human being would be illegal. In January, I brought some rough "Partial Birth Abortion" legislation through the proposal list several times (at one time massing around 100 approvals, too) before I decided to put the idea back on the shelf for a time. No mods deleted the proposal, even though there were ample opportunities.

Interesting - two people, two very different stories:

Interesting that you should bring up these two resolutions, as the Abortion resolution is actually an impediment (sp?) to my and Hirota's tabled "Condemning Infanticide" proposal ... I wanted to make sure parents aren't killing little girls prior to birth too ... but I've not yet found a way around it.

For both of you - did either of you ask for a mod ruling on your proposals?

Obviously there are limitations to this "explicitness" rule (that the UN must explicitly rule on things for it to be enforced). There's no way a proposal or nation would get away with saying "we hereby define 'the' as meaning 'not enforced by the UN' so we can disobey every resolution...". But these limitations are fuzzy. How explicit must the UN be? How much assumptions are made about the meanings of words? And so on. There are no definite answers, except maybe those principles set forth in Rights and Duties (which as Mikitivity said, is sort of like the flesh that covers the bones of the UN): that nations have sovereignty in every area not ruled on by the UN. Necessity of weapons for defense (as you and Reformentia have pointed out multiple times) has not been ruled on. It is still a national prevue. That is, until a Biological Weapons Ban takes it away.

But where does it say the necessity of explicitness. To beat a dead horse:


Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


It doesn't actually say that you have the right to rule your land except on areas where the UN has created laws, it says you have the right to rule your land SUBJECT to UN law - therefore meaning that you have to bend to the will of UN law - not the expicitness of UN law. Again, I see no way in how this says that the UN has to bend to the will of a nation - with or without the UNSA.

Which brings me to a beef I have with Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban. It doesn't take away nations' right to decide necessity. To have an effect, a clause must be in the active section of the proposal (typically the numbered section). The "non-necessity" clause in Reformentia's proposal is in the preambulary clauses--which have no effect on nations' right to determine things, and are nothing more than glorified campaign ads. If a weapons ban is to be legal according to the UNSA/Rights and Duties interpretation I'm pointing, the "non-necessity" clause must be in the active section rather than the preamble (it should be "DECLARES bioweapons unnecessary for defense" rather than "DECLARING bioweapons unnecessary for defense.")

It would be a tragedy if it so happened that this made Reformentia's proposal again be removed from the queue. A great tragedy, actually, but not one that was unavoidable...

Meh - it got ruled legal last I checked.

It does both. It defines the line between national and international from both sides ('nations have these rights; the UN has these rights', etc.).

Meh - still need to convince me.

Yup, all this does is set up the opposition (that the UN has the right to overrule any national law) to national sovereignty. Like I've always argued, Rights and Duties sets up a balance between UN and national power. The UN has the ability to rule over nations' power in every area, and nations have sovereignty over every area not yet ruled on by the UN.

Funny - I got the impression it legalizes deciding not to RP and sets limitations on how you can RP responses to Resolutions.

It's there. You've admitted my argument was correct right here:Which means that my nation has sovereignty over an area the UN hasn't decided upon--say, necessity of weapons for defense. And what, "is" necessary cannot be based on any other criteria, as the UNSA (or any other resolution) does not explicitly give the UN the power to decide it (though future resolutions certainly can--and some must to be legal).

First you have to convince me. Everything is built out from the base argument - but I just don't see where your base argument is coming from.

For both of you - did either of you ask for a mod ruling on your proposals?
I didn't, but the mods at least allowed me to persist (they had ample time to delete it) for a later ruling. I'd assume the mods would have ruled affirmatively to the proposal had they met and discussed it.

It doesn't actually say that you have the right to rule your land except on areas where the UN has created laws, it says you have the right to rule your land SUBJECT to UN law - therefore meaning that you have to bend to the will of UN law - not the expicitness of UN law.
Actually it says we rule our nations "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" meaning that UN laws are exceptions to the general rule of national sovereignty. So, it does mean "[we] have the right to rule your land except on areas where the UN has created laws".

Let's look at the implications of Fris's comparison of UN resolutions to "immunity" against national sovereignty. An immunity is an exception by definition: an exception to the general rule of susceptibility (be it susceptibility to prosecution, disease, etc.). I am 'immune' to a finite number of things, but I am 'susceptible' to an infinite number of things--everything I'm not immune to. The word "immunity" alone implies that nations have the right to rule until the UN says otherwise (or, we're susceptible to disease until we have immunity against it; the default state is susceptibility, just as the default sovereignty is national).

Also, Rights and Duties specifically says "the immunities recognized by international law", not "the immunities implied by international law" and not "whatever immunities a proposal author can pull out of his butt as being remotely associate with previous resolutions". There is not immunity in international law against individual UN nations determining what "is necessary", therefore it is their right to determine that.

Again, I see no way in how this says that the UN has to bend to the will of a nation - with or without the UNSA.And I don't mean to say it does. The UN has to bend its will to the UNSA because it isn't allowed to contradict it. The UNSA's phrase "weapons which are necessary for defense" (or "...which ARE necessary...", according to Reformentia) is not defined by the UN, therefore the only workable definition of it is the national one--since nations have the right to rule their lands except on areas where the UN has created laws and there are no laws created by the UN about what is and isn't necessary for defense.


Meh - it got ruled legal last I checked.But it was never scrutinized under the reasoning I'm using.

Also, Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban seems to mandate action by non-UN nations. The first clause says The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations
'Proxy' apparently means by "a different, puppeted nation", different from the UN nations being controlled by the ban (unless Reformentia can produce another reasonable interpretation). A puppet cannot be in the UN (according to the rules, only one nation per player can be in the UN). There are some who try to get around this, but most don't and so almost all puppets are non-UN. This 'proxy', then, applies to puppets of UN members--non-UN puppets, meaning the proposal would mandate things on non-UN nations--illegal.

First you have to convince me. Everything is built out from the base argument - but I just don't see where your base argument is coming from.
From the Rights and Duties of UN States. From the conventions that I've experienced in moderator decisions and UN discussions since I've played the game. From my sense of justice (that the UN can't just seize an area to rule over its member nations without the nations agreeing to it--through UN resolution). That's where I get the idea that national sovereingty is the constant, acted upon by the variable UN law.

Actually it says we rule our nations "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" meaning that UN laws are exceptions to the general rule of national sovereignty.

Yes. UN laws ARE exceptions to the general rule on national sovereignty.

Which means they don't have to SAY they're exceptions to the rule on national sovereignty by, for example, explicitly saying they're no longer letting a nation continue to personally define as necessary and protected a weapon the UN is now banning.

Any more than every UN resolution has to explicitly say "And oh, by the way, we're overiding your national sovereignty and requiring you to do what this resolution says".

And I don't mean to say it does. The UN has to bend its will to the UNSA because it isn't allowed to contradict it. The UNSA's phrase "weapons which are necessary for defense" (or "...which ARE necessary...", according to Reformentia) is not defined by the UN, therefore the only workable definition of it is the national one

No, it's not defined by the UN so as far as the UN is concerned there IS NO working definition. Nations are free to use their own, individual national definitions locally in the absence of a UN definition but they are not allowed to dictate to the UN which definition the UN itself has to use! Unless of course they decide to do so by writing, submitting, and passing a resolution.

There's over 35,000 members of the UN right now. Suggesting that the UN definition of what is necessary must be everything that ALL 35,000 of those nations individually decide to arbitrarily define as "necessary for defense" is absurd.

--since nations have the right to rule their lands except on areas where the UN has created laws and there are no laws created by the UN about what is and isn't necessary for defense.

That part's almost right. They have the right to rule their lands however they like EXCEPT where the UN has created laws on the matter. But the UNSA does not reserve the right for member nations to define FOR THE UN what it must, in the absence of UN legislation, consider to be a weapon necessary for defense. There is simply no working definition of that term in the UN as of this time. Which means in the UN no weapons ban can be ruled to be illegally banning a necessary weapon unless previous legislation had already established its necessity.

Also, Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban seems to mandate action by non-UN nations. The first clause says

'Proxy' apparently means by "a different, puppeted nation",

It means your UN nation can't contract other nations to do its dirty work. In character.

It is in no way forcing actions on non UN nations just because the same user happens to control them, unless that user, IN CHARACTER, has their UN nation try to make use of one of the puppet nations to get the UN nation around the ban. And that is still a prohibition on the action taken by the UN nation, not the puppet.

I've got one minute before the end of my break so I'm just going to deal with the multi-user issue.

As Reformatia explained - that is more for issues of alliances. If one nation by the user is getting in trouble so he gets his other nation to use Bio-weapons on the aggressor, that is against the resolution. He can't ask the other nation (whether it be his own or someone else's) to launch those weapons. However, if his other nation has a war in its own right - it can use those bio-weapons to its heart's content (as long as his UN nation doesn't get involved.....unless it was engaged seperately because then the guy is creating two wars against two nations that are not allied - and thus they wouldn't be breaking the UN law.....).

I didn't, but the mods at least allowed me to persist (they had ample time to delete it) for a later ruling. I'd assume the mods would have ruled affirmatively to the proposal had they met and discussed it.

I've seen all sorts of illegal proposals make it through the entire waiting period. Additionally, some proposals which are illegal don't get flagged as such (either because of oversight on the parts of the mod, or a late note gets put in) until it has already reached quarum. Good example: the Third World Water proposal (forget it's name) - which for the most part, was missed in its ruling but was noticed once it reached quarom. UNSA was also challenged for legalities AFTER it reached quarom, but it was left to its own devices. I would like to work with a mod ruling on the matter as it forces them to actually look at the details rather than just glaze through it as they run through the list of proposals.

Also, the rules regarding ammendments changed slightly in May so....

Actually it says we rule our nations "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" meaning that UN laws are exceptions to the general rule of national sovereignty. So, it does mean "[we] have the right to rule your land except on areas where the UN has created laws".

Actually, it means exemptions, not exceptions (check a dictionary), but that's a rather minor point (Fris, why did you have to use that word?) - at least until a wordsmith can tell us the subtle differences and their applications to law.

Now - how is MY argument any different than your argument? If the UN creates a law that conflicts with your law, than that is now an area that is exempt (must use correct term) from your national soverignty (let me guess - you think it says that the exemption must be what is actually stated in the UN law - IT DOESN'T SAY THAT - and if you still think it does, prove HOW it says that)

Let's look at the implications of Fris's comparison of UN resolutions to "immunity" against national sovereignty. An immunity is an exception by definition: an exception to the general rule of susceptibility (be it susceptibility to prosecution, disease, etc.). I am 'immune' to a finite number of things, but I am 'susceptible' to an infinite number of things--everything I'm not immune to. The word "immunity" alone implies that nations have the right to rule until the UN says otherwise (or, we're susceptible to disease until we have immunity against it; the default state is susceptibility, just as the default sovereignty is national).

Still doesn't conflict with my argument - so let's try the next one....

Also, Rights and Duties specifically says "the immunities recognized by international law", not "the immunities implied by international law" and not "whatever immunities a proposal author can pull out of his butt as being remotely associate with previous resolutions". There is not immunity in international law against individual UN nations determining what "is necessary", therefore it is their right to determine that.

I admit - this one is tripping me up - I know why, but I'm having fun trying to express it. I'll get back to you (plus my lunch break is over.....)

And I don't mean to say it does. The UN has to bend its will to the UNSA because it isn't allowed to contradict it. The UNSA's phrase "weapons which are necessary for defense" (or "...which ARE necessary...", according to Reformentia) is not defined by the UN, therefore the only workable definition of it is the national one--since nations have the right to rule their lands except on areas where the UN has created laws and there are no laws created by the UN about what is and isn't necessary for defense.

But it was never scrutinized under the reasoning I'm using.

Also, Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban seems to mandate action by non-UN nations. The first clause says
'Proxy' apparently means by "a different, puppeted nation", different from the UN nations being controlled by the ban (unless Reformentia can produce another reasonable interpretation). A puppet cannot be in the UN (according to the rules, only one nation per player can be in the UN). There are some who try to get around this, but most don't and so almost all puppets are non-UN. This 'proxy', then, applies to puppets of UN members--non-UN puppets, meaning the proposal would mandate things on non-UN nations--illegal.


From the Rights and Duties of UN States. From the conventions that I've experienced in moderator decisions and UN discussions since I've played the game. From my sense of justice (that the UN can't just seize an area to rule over its member nations without the nations agreeing to it--through UN resolution). That's where I get the idea that national sovereingty is the constant, acted upon by the variable UN law.

Christ. Think I need some light reading now. Ulysses should do it.

What are you - a toddler? Try something a bit more advanced :P.


Anyways - back to the original argument


Also, Rights and Duties specifically says "the immunities recognized by international law", not "the immunities implied by international law" and not "whatever immunities a proposal author can pull out of his butt as being remotely associate with previous resolutions". There is not immunity in international law against individual UN nations determining what "is necessary", therefore it is their right to determine that.


I admit - this one is tripping me up - I know why, but I'm having fun trying to express it. I'll get back to you (plus my lunch break is over.....)

Ok - from your arguments, what I THINK you're saying is that because the UN has not directly legislated, the "immunity" is not "recognized" on that matter. By tieing definition of "necessary" and "non-bannable", you are making it so that bans have to fight two fronts - because if you do not deal with both, the one that is not dealt with is not "recognized" by UN law. This is fairly simplified, but I think it emphasizes the main points.

However, I look at this in a different manner. I feel that since you have the words "subject to" before the exemptions of International law, you are required to bend to the will of any UN resolution (and all UN resolutions are recognized international laws). As such, I don't think it says or implies that nations are "exempt from anything the UN hasn't specifically legislated on", I actually see it instead of being your beacon of soverignty, it is your worst nightmare of federalism (and actually, to some extent I'd argue that Section 10 outlines what effectively sums up your rights of soverignty - you can fully choose to ignore any resolution, but you can't make your excuse be because your laws contradict them, it's because you choose to ignore them).

Warning: I'm crashing fast, I apologize in advance if my next point seems a bit incoherent.

I would argue that instead of making a ban have to fight two fronts, it (by tieing the two terms together) puts the banner in the position where he kills two birds with one stone - banning the weapon and then through implication, the "necessity" clause of the weapon. Since national laws are subject to any regonized UN Resolution (not AREA of law, actual resolution), if ANY local law contradicts the UN resolution - either through a combination of several laws or on its own - I would argue that it must still bend its will to that of the resolution.

I'd like to bring back my example with Resolution 61:


Ok - so UN passes resolution 61 - which guarantees abortion. However, Nation X passed a law where it declared that a fetus is a human being upon the moment of contraception - and thus, you would be commiting a murder if you killed it. Though arguably, you could say you are "Euthanising" the fetus (guaranteed by resolution 43), but what if that resolution wasn't there and Euthanasia was illegal in that country. In fact, what if they made it illegal to perform ANY operation where the end result is the death of a living human?


Resolution 61 says that abortions are legal.

Ignoring Resolution 43 (because, after all, all resolutions must stand by themselves)

Between the combination of declaring a fetus to be a human being and that no operation can be performed that would end in the death of a human being, you would outlaw abortions.

Neither outlawing operations that end in the death of a human being or declaring a fetus is a human being (though admittedly, some of the second attempts have dealt with the latter, resolution 61 did not).

Answer me this: does the nation have to bend to the will of resolution 61?

Please answer this entire case study as a single block.

Provided I don't get side tracked, I may answer the rest of your post - iirc, this one point was the key to your arguments on that post and if that's the case, I probably will not respond. However, right now I'm just crashing way too fast to go further.

*edit* Fris got the rest of it so I'm not going to continue with that post

Christ. Think I need some light reading now. Ulysses should do it.

I hear you. But on the other hand, this is one of the most civil and intelligent discussions / debates I've seen on NationStates in over a year and a half. Both sides continue to raise what I feel are valid points, and I'd like to encourage them to continue to do so, but also bear in mind that the other side likely has a valid POV at this time too.

The next step might be to see if we can direct this discussion into deciding where we'd like to *take* the NSUN.

Fair point Mik but I feel that it's too late to save me from the undying horror of dealing with an author with such a cavalier attitude towards ending sentences I mean the bastard won't ever let me stop reading which seems ureasonable to me as I need to get to sleep at some point and it's almost making me wish I was participating in a debate on NSUN legislation but really not that much I mean Christ that would be a nightmare... [ctd ad infinitum]

Fair point Mik but I feel that it's too late to save me from the undying horror of dealing with an author with such a cavalier attitude towards ending sentences I mean the bastard won't ever let me stop reading which seems ureasonable to me as I need to get to sleep at some point and it's almost making me wish I was participating in a debate on NSUN legislation but really not that much I mean Christ that would be a nightmare... [ctd ad infinitum]

I think the coffee that prevents you from actually pausing is a bigger deterrent to your sleep :p

Also, Reformentia's Biological Weapons Ban seems to mandate action by non-UN nations. The first clause saysOriginally Posted by Reformentia's proposal
The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations'Proxy' apparently means by "a different, puppeted nation", different from the UN nations being controlled by the ban (unless Reformentia can produce another reasonable interpretation). A puppet cannot be in the UN (according to the rules, only one nation per player can be in the UN). There are some who try to get around this, but most don't and so almost all puppets are non-UN. This 'proxy', then, applies to puppets of UN members--non-UN puppets, meaning the proposal would mandate things on non-UN nations--illegal.
I read this is an RP rule, not a game mechanics rule.

My UN nation, Gnomewatchers, goes to war. Because of UN restrictions, they can't do <action>. They say, in-character, "Nyah nyah boo boo, you thought we couldn't touch you, but we're going to have our big brother Frisbeeteria <action> you! So there!" The restriction in this case is not on Frisbeeteria for doing <action>, but rather on Gnomewatchers for claiming that <action> as a proxyable <action> in their name.

The UN does not recognize the existence of the players of this game, therefore the concept of non-UN puppets belonging to the same player must necessarily be excluded as well. If a UN nation has in-character puppet nations, then the restriction is on the UN nation not to have the non-UN puppet respond in their name.

Hey Fris, if (after this debate is over) we've got an argument against the standing ruling on the one measly line for weapons bans, do you think Hack will consider it or do you think he'd ban us for harassing him on the same ruling..again (or get ticked period)?

Hey Fris, if (after this debate is over) we've got an argument against the standing ruling on the one measly line for weapons bans, do you think Hack will consider it or do you think he'd ban us for harassing him on the same ruling..again (or get ticked period)?
"I am not my brother's keeper."

*mutters*

Well....guess I know what I'm doing this weekend....unless PC comes back....