NationStates Jolt Archive

The Rights Not Stated Act

NOTING the considerable amound of good that the UN and the
resolutions the UN has passed have done in the past.

ATTEMPTING to discontinue arguments over any/all proposals
and resolutions.

DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations and then to the people, stated in any past resolutions or not. These rights remain to the Nations and then to the People until a future resolution states otherwise.

FURTHER DECLARES:

1) There must be no laws set by individual nations that contradict passed resolutions set forth by the United Nations.

2) The People may not do any action that contradicts laws set by their nation they reside in or resolutions set by the United Nations.

URGES no resolutions be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.





Edit:

Reading now, the last line needed changing.
From: No new resolutions may be
passed to deny The Nation's or the People's rights that are not stated
directly.

To: No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.



Edit 2:

Since the proposal was not completely clear, I will reword the decleration:

From:
DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations or to the people, stated in any past resolutions
or not. These rights remain to the Nations or to the People until a
a future passed resolution states otherwise. No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.


To: DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations and then to the people, stated in any past resolutions or not. These rights remain to the Nations and then to the People until a future resolution states otherwise. No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

FURTHER DECLARES:

1) There must be no laws set by individual nations that contradict passed resolutions set forth by the United Nations.

2) The People may not do any action that contradicts laws set by their nation they reside in or resolutions set by the United Nations.

OOC: Does it need anything? If so what, help me out before I submit it.

Ok, case study question (yeah, my favorite)

Abortion Rights (Resolution 61) says that no nation can infringe upon a women's right to choose to have an abortion. Ok - so no nation can pass a law that would outlaw abortion. Now let's say nation X does this:

1) Passes a law saying no person can choose a procedure that results in the death of a living human being (we'll assume resolution 43 was repealed or something)
2) Passes a law saying that a baby is a living human being from the moment of conception

.........
Under this proposal, would that be allowed?

If it isn't, how does this do anything we haven't seen in Resolution 49?

IMO, I think we're making the UN so obscenely complicated that pretty much, you'd have to actually go through DLE's entire list of possible ways to get around resolutions (many of which would still be considered godmodding before) and just completely block every single one of them.

I don't like it. I think this is a bad idea.

This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

The above is from Resolution #49.

This proposal does not only ensure the current rights stated by the resolutions passed by the United Nations but also reserves the rights that have not been stated yet. If there is ever a banning of something or an outlaw then the nations no longer have that right because it is stated in a resolution.

I don't see how your example pertains to this. The abortion example with the "x nation" would certainly not be allowed by this act and I don't see why it would thought to be so. That is a contradiction of resolutions and the abortion rights resolution would have to be repealed before such a proposal could come up.

So if they contradict resolutions - either through one law or a multitude of laws that address rights not explicitly stated, but combined contradict - then it is illegal?

So how does that do anything we don't have within this line:

§ 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.

Quoted from Resolution 49, 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.

This is not giving only nations their rights it is also giving the people their rights. My proposal is basically saying that:

1) Nations have the right to do things with their territory that have not been stopped by the UN through past resolutions.

2) Also, it is giving the people of said nations the right to do what they want that have not been stopped by the nation that they reside.

This is not giving only nations their rights it is also giving the people their rights. My proposal is basically saying that:

1) Nations have the right to do things with their territory that have not been stopped by the UN through past resolutions.

2) Also, it is giving the people of said nations the right to do what they want that have not been stopped by the nation that they reside.
Hmm. The way I see it, point number 2 is already the case, because it is intrinsic to laws (if it isn't illegal, it is legal, etc). It is basically a statement saying "You are allowed to do whatever you are allowed to do," in my eyes.


EDIT:
Query: By this resolution, do you mean "all rights that have not at the time of this resolution's passing been stated", or "all rights that are not at any point enumerated in a resolution that is in effect at said point"?
Because if it were the former, you would be effectively shutting down the Human Rights and Furtherment of Democracy categories and all that. I am fairly sure that you mean the latter, but I wanted to make sure.

So you are taking away the right of nations to remove rights? Or does this apply to National Law? In which case, if there is no law they are breaking, they couldn't be charged for it - right? If they were, it would be in defiance of Habeas Corpus.

So you are taking away the right of nations to remove rights?
I don't think that is what was meant, at least assuming you were referring to article 2.
The way it was worded, it seemed to me more like "taking away the right of nations to remove rights other than those rights that they choose to remove."
The last bit was what made me think that:
"2) Also, it is giving the people of said nations the right to do what they want that have not been stopped by the nation that they reside."

Also:
DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations or to the people, stated in any past resolutions
or not. These rights remain to the Nations or to the People until a
a future passed resolution states otherwise. No new resolutions may be
passed to deny The Nation's or the People's rights that are not stated
directly.
This doesn't quite work. Let me give an example:
The issue of legalizing drugs. Does your resolution require that we give the people the right to use drugs, or the nation the right to decide whether or not people can use drugs?
This is all made even more complicated by the fact that you used 'or'. Who gets to choose which thing we do?
In at least this situation, that clause doesn't work out too well. If you are going on the national sovreignity angle, you might do better saying that the right is reserved by the nation to do as it pleases.

Query: By this resolution, do you mean "all rights that have not at the time of this resolution's passing been stated", or "all rights that are not at any point enumerated in a resolution that is in effect at said point"?

It is the 2nd.

The issue of legalizing drugs. Does your resolution require that we give the people the right to use drugs, or the nation the right to decide whether or not people can use drugs?

If there is no law against it then it is the nations option yes. If they have no law against it then the people are free to decide.

Listen,

I am not saying that you have to agree with the contents of this proposal, I am asking if their is anything that I could do to make it better. If not, I will soon propose it. Vote for it or against it. You have to do what you agree with, but don't totally knock it down before it has a chance to be reviewed by other United Nations members.

If we're right, it's illegal for duplication.

If your intention is what you've stated in the debate following, the contents of the proposal don't actually say that.

If your intention is not what you've stated and is actually what this proposal does at face value (which my example would be relevant for), then I would be making a moderator challenge for deletion because I think it's a very bad direction for the UN to go.

Um....yeah.

If we're right, it's illegal for duplication.

If your intention is what you've stated in the debate following, the contents of the proposal don't actually say that.

If your intention is not what you've stated and is actually what this proposal does at face value (which my example would be relevant for), then I would be making a moderator challenge for deletion because I think it's a very bad direction for the UN to go.

Um....yeah.

What was it that I brought up in the former debate that is not stated here?

Forgottenlands?

What was it that I brought up in the former debate that is not stated here?

It's not the former debate, it's the actual text of the proposal. Try:

"Nations can pass any law that they choose as long as it does not contradict any resolution. Citizens can do anything they wish as long as it doesn't defy any national or international law."

It has been revised, I am actually more fond of it now. Hopefully you all agree.

This is utterly pointless. It is already the case that UN members and their citizens are under no obligation to follow any particular path of action unless a UN resolution or other authority specifically requires them to. It is completely unnecessary to have this stated in UN legislation, and any resolution which does so is likely to cause more trouble than good via confusion, as it can be difficult to unambiguously convey this concept.

Plus, saying that citizens are free to do anything which the UN or their government does not prohibit could potentially cause problems because it is technically possible for a nation to operate an upside down system of laws, in which all legal acts are specified and anything not explicitly permitted in law is automatically illegal.

Plus, saying that citizens are free to do anything which the UN or their government does not prohibit could potentially cause problems

I don't think it will, I believe it would create a better understanding of law and would urge law makers to make laws more clear and air tight so that no loop holes can be found around something the UN or national government wants to make into law.

At this point, I just want to see what Hack will say. I can't support this, and I honestly think it is impossible to make a resollution with and purpose.

Regardless, I agree with Myopia's comment. Those nations which are reverse to our own legal system would be effected by such a theory. Habeus Corpus combined with the various Human Rights resolutions pretty much addresses the concerns with citizens having the right to not be charged unjustly for actions which are legal - either because they aren't illegal (reverse systems will basically saying "unless we say otherwise, all actions are illegal"), or because they ahve been specifically legalized.

Game Mechanics, combined with the FAQ, combined with Rights and Duties of UN States, Article 2 combined with the stickies (which say that basically if you ignore resolutions without doing loopholes....you're godmodding)......you've pretty much covered Nations rights in passing their own laws.

At this point, I just want to see what Hack will say. I can't support this, and I honestly think it is impossible to make a resollution with and purpose.

I suspect that Hack would say it's illegal...because it is. Hopefully it can be re-written to be legal.

To: DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations and then to the people, stated in any past resolutions or not. These rights remain to the Nations and then to the People until a future resolution states otherwise. No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

The bolded portion explicitly limits future legislation, which is to my knowledge illegal according to the proposal rules.

I suspect that Hack would say it's illegal...because it is. Hopefully it can be re-written to be legal.



The bolded portion explicitly limits future legislation, which is to my knowledge illegal according to the proposal rules.

Besides that minor fact about it being all illegal and stuff , how is it? :)

I will take that out to make it legal, I son't want anything to hold it back.

Besides that minor fact about it being all illegal and stuff , how is it? :)

I will take that out to make it legal, I son't want anything to hold it back.

It's mostly a redo of "Rights and Duties of UN States" except for this:

DECLARES that all rights not denied to the Nations or to the people,
are reserved to the Nations and then to the people.

You may want to try using that clause as a finishing point, and then building your argument for it so you can have something to lead up to that final clause.

I have changed: No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

To: URGES no resolutions be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

I have changed: No resolutions may be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

To: URGES no resolutions be passed to deny The Nation's/People's rights on cause that they are not directly stated in any past or future resolution.

That's basically nothing more than a personal plea to potential proposal writers, and thus definitely does not belong in UN legislation.

If you're that worked up about it, just start a thread in the forum specifically to campaign against proposals doing this. Passing a proposal to say nothing more than it would be nice if future proposals avoided doing something is a waste of everyone's time, and will have zero effect (and is probably illegal).

That's basically nothing more than a personal plea to potential proposal writers, and thus definitely does not belong in UN legislation.


Um, excuse me but I must disagree. This Sex Education act that is soon to pass is nothing but an Urge. I don't see anything wrong with it. If this proposal is legal then I am going to propose it because I believe that it should be officially stated. I am not going to just "start a thread".

That's different. The current resolution is the UN urging governments to do something. What you're proposing is almost OOC, an urging directed at the actual players to write resolutions in a certain way. I don't really like it, and I'm dubious about its legality.

That's different. The current resolution is the UN urging governments to do something. What you're proposing is almost OOC, an urging directed at the actual players to write resolutions in a certain way. I don't really like it, and I'm dubious about its legality.

It would probably be a MetaGame violation for the reason you stated.

That's what it feels like to me, but I'm not sure if a mod will see it in the same way.

That's what it feels like to me, but I'm not sure if a mod will see it in the same way.

I'm not completely sure either, but I had a proposal that did essentially the same thing (URGING action regarding proposals) get deleted, so I have some evidence to suggest that a mod would indeed see it that way... :D

Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine.

Looks fine to me...

Oh, there's nothing wrong with recommending things rather than requiring them in a proposal, we're just not sure if it's legal to write proposals urging that proposals be written in a specific way.

So if that was taken out, or reworded, then it would be legal?

I don't know if you could change it without defeating the point of what the author wants - quite simply, I'm dubious about the legality of what the author wants to do (and legal or not my nation will definitely oppose it).

It would get rid of the metagaming violation, I'm not sure how it would do again:
1) Duplication (I really think that needs to be dropped)
2) UN worthiness......

Unless he's trying to argue for a default legal to be enforced rather than allowing default illegal (the only legitamite not-previously-performed component of this resolution), he's going to get hit on duplication. IMO, he should scrap everything but that component, and expand further on a full preamble saying why this is a good idea.