NationStates Jolt Archive

Mmm, I get high with a little help from my friends,
Mmm, gonna try with a little help from my friends.

Frisbeeteria doesn't go in the UN forums does he?

ANYWAY.

I have a question or two regarding the UN, and I was hoping someone might deign to stoop to humour the little n00b. I've already been in and out of the UN, and I'm a-coming back.

My questions, simply, are:

1. I assume that ALL resolutions, regardless of when they were passed, must be taken into consideration by my government should I become a UN member again? So, I would, for example, be barred from using landmines in any conflict, even though Resolution #40 was passed before I joined the UN?

2. Is there an agreed source on interpretations on Resolutions? For example: Resolution #52, Ballast Water, 'RECOMMENDS that international cargo ships using ballast water exchange or cycle this water while in ocean waters exceeding 1,600 meters in depth' in its first operative clause. The connotation of 'recommends' to me is that this is, whilst perhaps not 'optional', not something that nay nation, corporation or individual could be penalised for. In other words: where can I find how far I can stretch the bounds of interpretation in order to wank, wank, wank?

3. (And this is less important.) What the fuck is the point of the Universal Bill of Rights? That's not a direct criticism of the resolution, its proposer or its signatories: however, I want to clear up that it doesn't in fact force any nation to do anything whatsoever. That is a valid interpretation?

I have read the sticky and browsed NSWiki (I would make it into a poem, but the Mods might smell it) ((and it wouldn't be funny)) - and I can't seem to find this stuff. If I've missed summat obvious like, I'd be most obliged if some kind soul could point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance for your help.

(What do I do when my love is away...?)

many resolutions are , in fact, toothless.

1. Yes.

2. If it isn't spelled out as a requirement of the resolution then it's compliance optional. Anything "recommended, urged, requested..." falls into that category. As for a single agreed interpretive source... not that we're aware of.

3. No UN member may take action which violates the rights protected by the Universal Bill of Rights. The resolution guarantees those rights to all people in the UN.

That's great.

Anyone fancy answering any of my questions? Especially given how polite I am?

1. Yes.

2. If it isn't spelled out as a requirement of the resolution then it's compliance optional. Anything "recommended, urged, requested..." falls into that category.

3. No UN member may take action which violates the rights protected by the Universal Bill of Rights. The resolution guarantees those rights to all people in the UN.

1. Yes, thought so.
2. Thanks!
3. So when Article 10 states that these rights are 'herby [sic] protected' if they aren't already enshrined in national law, it means that they must become enshrined in international law? Ok, that's fine - although it's a trifle awkwardly worded.

Anyway, many thanks!

However, the point still remains:

is there an agreed source of interpretations of resolutions? Of the extent to which they actually affect specific aspects of law? Clearly, this is distinct from the game coding they effect: I mean, for RP-purposes, the extent to which individuals are bound by the non-direct clauses?

However, the point still remains:

is there an agreed source of interpretations of resolutions? Of the extent to which they actually affect specific aspects of law? Clearly, this is distinct from the game coding they effect: I mean, for RP-purposes, the extent to which individuals are bound by the non-direct clauses?

You got your reply in before our edit... so to reproduce it: No such source exists that we are aware of.

That's why we prefer resolutions to be sufficiently detailed to remove too much room for interpretation on important issues, and to avoid making articles of resolutions compliance optional unless there's some good reason for it.

Thank you. I didn't spot you edit.

Ok, sorry to be a pain now. But I'm still not clear.

Let's take as an example Resolution #9, Keep The World Disease Free!

It states that every citizen 'has the right to a toilet in their own home' (or words to that effect).

Does this, however, mean that UN nations are obliged to provide a toilet in every home? Or merely that no UN nation may obstruct any citizen from their mandated right to have a toilet in their own home?

In this case, and others, does giving citizens certain rights merely oblige national governments to respect i.e. not infringe upon those rights? Or does it mean that they must ensure that every member citizen has [whatever it is that the particular right caters for]?

I know I'm just being annoying now - but these things matter.

Ok, sorry to be a pain now. But I'm still not clear.

Let's take as an example Resolution #9, Keep The World Disease Free!

It states that every citizen 'has the right to a toilet in their own home' (or words to that effect).

Does this, however, mean that UN nations are obliged to provide a toilet in every home? Or merely that no UN nation may obstruct any citizen from their mandated right to have a toilet in their own home?

Well...

1. It says everyone "should" have the right to a toilet in thier home... which is a little ambiguous as to whether that right is actually being reserved or not (that resolution really could be written better).

2. Having the right to own a material object doesn't incur a responsibility on the nation to provide it for you. For example, the right to bear arms does not require the state to buy you a gun. So, the latter of your listed options.

Once more, thanks.

Fris does check into these forums on occasion. Actually, out of all the mods, he's the second most active mod as far as we know in the UN (could be absolutely untrue, but that's what the appearance is)

Fris does check into these forums on occasion. Actually, out of all the mods, he's the second most active mod as far as we know in the UN (could be absolutely untrue, but that's what the appearance is)

Yes, I was being facetious. (36)

If you want help getting around UN resolutions, just read the stickies I wrote.

*toots own horn* ;)

Yes, I'd already that.

Yes, I'd already that.

Excellent. I expect that given your reservations about rejoining the UN, you would want to pay special attention to the ways of avoiding Bad Resolutions TM. :D

I know you're only trying to be helpful, so thanks.