NationStates Jolt Archive

Though there are various purposes behind this organization, my government is curious about the principal purpose of the United Nations. Given the fact that nearly 1/3 of the UN resolutions that have been adopted in 2.5 years have been "Human Rights" issues, it might be suggested that the principal purpose of the United Nations is to promote civil liberties.

Is this true? Should the UN also strive to prevent international misunderstandings and deal with other issues, such as international security, shared resources, or the environment?

There are many resolutions regarding the environment. I'm not sure I quite understand your point.

I think, as the years go on, we will see that percentage of Human Rights resolutions decrease in favor of other categories (particularly Environment, but I think Moral Decency and International Security - judging by the world we live in today - will be bigger). However, the fact that Human Rights is THE biggest, and it has been since End Slavery (believing that Social Justice and Human Rights.....are basically the same thing when we're talking about the priority of the UN), means that the UN has effectively made it its primary mandate. Yes we should and do legislate outside that area, but this was our priority, so we got it done first. Now that that area is mostly done, we might move into others a bit more.

That said, I don't agree with 'kenny's use of this as an excuse to repeal a resolution. That's basically trying to claim that its almost our SOLE purpose, and we shouldn't work outside that.

I also think it's seriously important to remember the massive constraints of the NSUN. I'm not going to newbie-bash - I am one, after all - but it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be coded changes to the NSUN - and its present form, the passage of a resolution can occur entirely without forum action.

There are many resolutions regarding the environment. I'm not sure I quite understand your point.

:) It is a part rhetorical, as I expect *most* nations will believe that the principal purpose of the United Nations goes beyond human rights.

However, in a day or two, I plan to point to a resolution currently being debated which states that the principal purpose of the UN is solely human rights issues. If this poll is significantly different than that "repeal", I'm going to question another clause in the resolution and ask supporters of the repeal if they've read the repeal they've voted on. Why would somebody vote for a document that states: "the primary purpose of the UN is to promote human rights" (paraphrased), if they don't believe that point.

Hmm...I rarely trust forum polls. Puppetry and all that. In this case, though, it's an interesting experiment. And good luck with that. In reference to the resolution in question...well, that can wait I suppose. Sorry for misunderstanding the purpose of this thread.

:) It is a part rhetorical, as I expect *most* nations will believe that the principal purpose of the United Nations goes beyond human rights.

However, in a day or two, I plan to point to a resolution currently being debated which states that the principal purpose of the UN is solely human rights issues. If this poll is significantly different than that "repeal", I'm going to question another clause in the resolution and ask supporters of the repeal if they've read the repeal they've voted on. Why would somebody vote for a document that states: "the primary purpose of the UN is to promote human rights" (paraphrased), if they don't believe that point.

I support the repeal more because combined, they are accurate.

From a purely extreme consideration, we can actually correct the wording to being "for Humans" period, and I can show how supporting a resolution in any but the three legalize or ban categories is there for being "for humans" - and why the resolution to protect dolphins FAILS to be "for humans" (and is actually one of the few that could be considered such - Sex Ed act I think is another). Basically, I feel that line is a moot point (not a friendly one, not one that I support, but a moot one) and am more concerned about the other 3 lines - which combined I feel express my opinions on the necessity of this repeal (in particular, the combination of national sovereignty and lack of being endangered - which seperate are unsubstantial and not arguments I would support, but combined make this repeal an important one to pass).

Allow me to strike one for the expected minority, then. The UN should stick primarily to human rights issues for a simple reason. Three quarters of the nations in NS are not member of the UN. As such, it is impractical to make sweeping statements about how a resolution preserves the environment when, in essence, 75% of nations thumb their collective noses at its text. Add to that no nation derives any real benefits from UN membership that cannot be obtained through other means (i.e. a UN delegacy for control of a given region can be mimicked by founding a new region with a non-UN nation).

Let's examine the resolution currently under repeal - the dolphin issue, as some have called it. Right now, it is illegal for UN members to go dolphin hunting (and whale hunting, for that matter). So what about the rest of the world, which can quite nicely continue on serving dolphin-and-whale meat sandwiches at will?

Thus, without a coherent focus, the UN ends up pandering to the lowest common denominator - people who have an idea (good or bad), the time to telegram delegates and the ability to sway a couple forum regulars. None of this is technically challenging, and the quality of resolutions reflects this process - totally haphazard. So I see the need for the UN to basically pick one area on which most of its energy will be directed, and human rights does seem to be one of the few areas in which I feel that the UN can make a strong (RPable) impact.

the resolution to protect dolphins FAILS to be "for humans"

we really think this resolution is for humans, and not only dolphins

as we have said in this previous post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9506193&postcount=8

our past is full of wars, crimes and discriminations only because we were thinking we were superior to other people, or we were the ""chosen"" nation or the nation the most beloved by god or whatever

we don't want our future to ressemble our past on this matter
=> this resolution is also a beautiful metaphor for humans

Hmm...I rarely trust forum polls. Puppetry and all that. In this case, though, it's an interesting experiment. And good luck with that. In reference to the resolution in question...well, that can wait I suppose. Sorry for misunderstanding the purpose of this thread.

Oh, I made the poll public, because there are actually some nations that really do feel the only purpose of the UN is to deal in one sort of issue. And I think it will have other uses later to know who those nations are. :)

Ultimately the UN has as many "purposes" as there are member nations, because even if two nations feel the UN should focus on one type of resolution, they aren't going to agree exactly on how that should be done.

Essentially, this discussion is more than just a single resolution and can take its own course. :)

Allow me to strike one for the expected minority, then. The UN should stick primarily to human rights issues for a simple reason. Three quarters of the nations in NS are not member of the UN. As such, it is impractical to make sweeping statements about how a resolution preserves the environment when, in essence, 75% of nations thumb their collective noses at its text. Add to that no nation derives any real benefits from UN membership that cannot be obtained through other means (i.e. a UN delegacy for control of a given region can be mimicked by founding a new region with a non-UN nation).


Some of us who roleplay use our non-UN puppets not has nations, but as NGOs or Embassies or Corporations. The belief that 75% of the nations thumb their nose at the UN is *also* wrong because some non-UN members actually pick and choose some UN resolutions to adhere to. I've seen a few non-UN members donate resources to the UN created International Red Cross and ask for its help. Clearly they support some causes.

My point is, to base a roleplay on a set of game stats that aren't really logical (does a 100% tax make sense for some of the corporate nations in NationStates? It doesn't to me ... hello, broken game), when other players aren't recognizing those same stats is problematic.

I have no problem with a nation saying, "We only support promoting human rights." That is cool (for them). But I do take issue with a nation saying, "No, I'm saying the ONLY reason for the UN is my reason." Diplomatically, and in character, I think most of us would find the idea that somebody else is telling us what is important for us without even asking to ... ironically violate our "sovereignty".

EDIT: And I want to make clear that I do not feel Krioval expressing its opinion is attempting to state what the rest of us should believe, but instead justifying what works for their government ... this is great to see and moves the topic along. :)

we really think this resolution is for humans, and not only dolphins

as we have said in this previous post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9506193&postcount=8

our past is full of wars, crimes and discriminations only because we were thinking we were superior to other people, or we were the ""chosen"" nation or the nation the most beloved by god or whatever

we don't want our future to ressemble our past on this matter
=> this resolution is also a beautiful metaphor for humans

Actually..."For Humans" is about being "for our benefit" - whether it be as a whole or as an individual. There is a "for humans" argument for making sure an animal doesn't become extinct. There is not a "for humans" argument to protect an animal just because it's friendly or similar or anything else - it is not us, so when we think "for humans" or "for us", we ignore it.

Your argument is not a "For humans" but "for a better non-human image of humans" (because we will always choose to see ourselves in a better light than we really deserve).

our argument is a "For humans"
for our future, our benefits of we, Humans

because this resolution teach us about "differences"
and when we look at our own past, we really need to learn about "differences" as we have commit so many wars, crimes and discriminations

If it's 100% personal income tax (while no corporate tax), and you let the bosses claim their income in a nation other than your own, then you can easily have a corporate nation with a 100% tax rate......

That said......psychologically it is unreasonable to claim such a nation could or would exist.....

Allow me to strike one for the expected minority, then. The UN should stick primarily to human rights issues for a simple reason. Three quarters of the nations in NS are not member of the UN. As such, it is impractical to make sweeping statements about how a resolution preserves the environment when, in essence, 75% of nations thumb their collective noses at its text. Add to that no nation derives any real benefits from UN membership that cannot be obtained through other means (i.e. a UN delegacy for control of a given region can be mimicked by founding a new region with a non-UN nation).

Let's examine the resolution currently under repeal - the dolphin issue, as some have called it. Right now, it is illegal for UN members to go dolphin hunting (and whale hunting, for that matter). So what about the rest of the world, which can quite nicely continue on serving dolphin-and-whale meat sandwiches at will?I respectfully disagree with this. You bring up the very important point that the UN does not make universal decisions and cannot effect non-UN nations, but I don't think that makes the UN influencing its members' policies (protecting Dolphins from some nations) worthless.

We can compare this to a household. Let's say that I'm the head of the household. I want to help the environment. I mandate that every person in my house will recycle. Is that making the Joneses next door recycle? Is it stopping the Joneses from dumping fluids down storm drains? No, but it is affecting what happens within my household. It isn't a complete solution, but it's my little part to play.

Thus, without a coherent focus, the UN ends up pandering to the lowest common denominator - people who have an idea (good or bad), the time to telegram delegates and the ability to sway a couple forum regulars. None of this is technically challenging, and the quality of resolutions reflects this process - totally haphazard.
Actually, swaying forum regulars isn't even needed...All you need is a telegram campaign and a non-hated proposal text. I (and I regret it now) ran the telegram campaign for The Great Agnostica with his "The Global Library" resolution. As we all know, the quality of the resolution was lacking. Yet, because there was someone willing to run a telegram campaign for it, it reached quorum and eventually passed. If the Great Agnostica had submitted the proposal without me or someone else campaigning for it, as he had done several times before, it would not have passed. So, yes, telegram campaigns are a very important factor in the passage of a proposal.

But, if all that were needed for a resolution to pass were a telegram campaign, every proposal that came to vote would become a resolution. Obviously, that is not the case (as, unfortunately for him or her, Agnostic Deeishpeople can probably tell you). This fact that proposals with telegram campaigns can fail makes me think the equation of passing a proposal into resolution as something like this:

Resolution Quotient = (Quality of Resolution) / (Telegram Campaigning for the resolution*).

*Telegram campaigns being rated between infinity and 0. And infinity campaign would be absolute obscurity, while a zero would be a "perfect" campaign in which every good feature of the proposal is brought out to its best to every nation in NS.

I consider telegram campaigns to multiply the effectiveness of a policy or resolution: just like in real-life politics. It Petrouka, a third-party politician in the US, were advocating gay marriages, is it really going to do much--regardless of how valid his argument? Not so much. However, multiply the validity of his argument over the whole of a Democratic Party and a well-known and persuasive leader and you have yourself a pro-gay marriage majority. In a way, money and prestige do buy political power (as telegramming does in the NSUN), as it multiplies your claims and arguments to a greater persuasiveness or range. This fact irks those that believe in absolutes and don't like to think that they might believe the way they do because it's most persuasive to them (instead of their preferred: "because it's the right way to think!"), but I've found it to be the truth. In general

Another way I think about proposal passage is as a free market economy. It's not always the best product that gets the greatest audience (take the Windows OS, for example, not the best out there, but it is the most successful financially). But, still, horrid products from even the most lucrative and wide-spread company will fail to sell. So, the financial success of a product is a function of both the advertising it receives and the quality of the product.

Anyway, about the "UN...pandering to the lowest common denominator" (which, yes Krioval, I believe refers, to a large degree, to my resolutions in particular): I'm not sure what exactly you mean. If by "lowest common denominator" you mean the things most people share in common, i.e. the beliefs of the majority, then I'd say there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, I'd say that "pandering to the lowest common denominator" (or "cultivating moderation and compromise" as I'd call it) is what the democratic process is intended to do.

Of course, you may not mean this at all, in which case I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with it.

We can compare this to a household. Let's say that I'm the head of the household. I want to help the environment. I mandate that every person in my house will recycle. Is that making the Joneses next door recycle? Is it stopping the Joneses from dumping fluids down storm drains? No, but it is affecting what happens within my household. It isn't a complete solution, but it's my little part to play.

The problem with that analogy is that there is likely some tangible benefit to belonging in one's household rather than abandoning it for either another or the street, whereas in the UN, there is no tangible benefit for putting up with resolutions that penalize one's nation moreso than other nations. It could be argued that all NSers dislike at least one resolution, and thus, some compromise is needed in the UN, which is true, but also largely immaterial when it comes to why some nations remain in the UN and other leave.

Krioval departed the UN due to the "piledrive effect". Taken one at a time, perhaps, the economy-draining resolutions that were passing wouldn't have lowered Krioval's economy to the point where departure from the UN became necessary to stabilize the situation - as it was, Krioval left right before the reservoir resolution passed to avoid yet another hit to the pocketbook. This illustrates how, when a particular type of resolution is brought to the floor repeatedly, nations normally tolerant of a single resolution of that type will become nervous or hostile.

The other "effect" is the "issue effect" - a nation is diametrically opposed to a particular issue being legislated by the UN, be it same-sex marriage, dolphin hunting, or organ donation, and they leave as a result. So long as there are no direct benefits to membership beyond a nation's liking most resolutions that have passed (thus gaining "civil rights" points, for example), there is little tying a nation to the UN to begin with.

It's simple cost/benefit analysis. For Krioval, to give an example, it looked a lot like:

Benefits (Stay) - Regional Delegate, forum regular, Human Rights resolutions help keep civil liberties strong

Costs (Stay) - Environmental and Social Justice resolutions causing economic downturn, weapons bans causing shortfall in military and police spending, debates generally sucking (in quality), Krioval part of minority on several recent resolutions

The costs outweighed the benefits, and losing the privilege of going through the massive proposal list for the three decent ones there suddenly didn't feel like so huge a loss. That's how simple these decisions become. I felt that many of the debates were turning into either "it sounds good so let's approve it" commentary or shouting matches devoid of reasonable speech, which made the decision even easier. I haven't seen threads as good as some of the ones in which I participated earlier this year, and so long as the "quality drain" coupled with the "there must be a resolution to vote on" impulse remain in force, the UN is dangerous to many civilized countries.

Anyway, about the "UN...pandering to the lowest common denominator" (which, yes Krioval, I believe refers, to a large degree, to my resolutions in particular): I'm not sure what exactly you mean. If by "lowest common denominator" you mean the things most people share in common, i.e. the beliefs of the majority, then I'd say there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, I'd say that "pandering to the lowest common denominator" (or "cultivating moderation and compromise" as I'd call it) is what the democratic process is intended to do.

While I've disagreed with some of your resolutions in the past, I didn't have you specifically in mind. Take a look at some of the very early resolutions to see this effect. I have a problem with people passing shit resolutions, frankly, because the wording sounds "nice". "Don't kill dolphins" sounds nice. It also does nothing that a comprehensive wildlife proposal couldn't have handled, but the comprehensive proposal takes work. So long as the UN members are willing to sacrifice quality of resolutions for having something on which to vote every week, people will continue to pander to the lowest common denominator. That's what that phrase was meant to indicate, and I apologize for being unclear.

I guess if the majority of UN states are either too intellectually lazy to critically read the resolutions on which they vote or are too uneducated to comprehend the implications of them until two to six months later, when the repeals come in full force, I think that the UN should try to restrict its focus to a few types of resolutions and try to shore up interest in actually vetting proposals and resolutions before the obnoxious ones (Global Library being a great example) pass.

Basically, Krioval is allowed to do all the good things the UN does without being part of the UN, and without all the bullshit of having to correct the messes of people who vote without reading. I'm sure this is both sufficiently long and sufficiently all over the place to end it right here.

I believe the primary purpose of the UN IS intenational security. In all other areas they have overstepped their bounds. (Please note: I have no problem with the UN requesting and distributing relief funds in the case of international tragedies, however, the requirement of such funds is going to far)

I believe that the purpose of the UN is to deal with issues of international importance while at the same time dealing with them in a manner that respects a nation's national soverenighty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

National "impotance"? :eek:

I believe that the purpose of the UN is to deal with issues of international impotance while .......
We feel that impotence, much like circumcision, is a matter best left to individual nations to decide.

Make one little typo. :mad:

Make one little typo. :mad:
If the typo had been in "international" or "while" it would have gone unnoticed. Since it was "importance", well........... :)

Make one little typo. :mad:

That is part of our shark like charm!
*big toothy grin*

Personally I feel that international security should be the primary focus as well, with human rights being a close second. Environmental issues I think are also important, but considering how many nations don't abide by UN law, the impact of such legislation is minimalized, although not insignificant.

Personally when it comes to the Great Dolphin Debate, I don't think it should be banned, regulated perhaps but not banned. There are plenty of animals, and fish, that are killed and consumed and not to the point of extinction. With some investment and study I'm sure we can sucessfully find a way to continue eating dolphin without fear of extinction. If nothing else they could be bred in captivity or artifically inseimate dolphin for breeding. It would be expensive meat, but it would be viable.

Comparing dolphins to slaves I think is a very offensive arguement however.

Anyway dolphins aside, it will be interesting to see how the experiment goes.

It should expand beyond Human Rights.

I think the UN has done a really good job on Human and Social right issues.


Now when it comes to Environmental, economical and International security issues...not so much.

I think we should take some time and really focus on those issues...


I would love to see some of the author's of the current repeals, turn their skills towards meatier issues, like International Security.

First of all, we'd like to thank the distinguished representative of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity for starting this very interesting thread.

As far as Ausserland is concerned, we believe that the UN has the ability to influence a wide variety of aspects of life. We would hate to see it having tunnel-vision on any single category of issues. The representatives of the member nations bring a wide variety of interests and expertise to the floor, and also a wide variety of concerns. That, we think, is the best thing about the UN.

[OOC: Where else would I have learned what microcredit is and that there are problems associated with poorly managed reservoirs? ;) ]

[OOC: Where else would I have learned what microcredit is and that there are problems associated with poorly managed reservoirs? ;) ]


OOC: I have to say that microcredit resolution was pretty ingenious. It really open my mind to market-based solution possibilities. I hope that inspires more of the same.

Personally I see the UN in nationstates the same way one of the greatest U.S. Secretary of State saw it in the real world. Dean Acheson found the UN useful a a forum to confront and keep international pressure on 'Uncle Joe' and the Soviet Union, but little use elsewhere. He even believed that those who thought the UN could solve all problems in the world to be soft headed. I totally agree. In NS the UN is useful as a forum to keep abrest of issues such as security, economic impacts, even humanitarian concerns. But to actally expect the UN to actually do something really useful and meaningful. No, I'll take my chances and rely on my own allies and my own people.

[OOC: Where else would I have learned what microcredit is and that there are problems associated with poorly managed reservoirs? ;) ]
Microcredit Bazaar was one of my faves too - it was very ingenious, and a welcome change from the state of the UN at the time; but thats enough of me hijacking...
Though there are various purposes behind this organization, my government is curious about the principal purpose of the United Nations. Given the fact that nearly 1/3 of the UN resolutions that have been adopted in 2.5 years have been "Human Rights" issues, it might be suggested that the principal purpose of the United Nations is to promote civil liberties.Is it possible that these resolutions are passed because people (OOC) are more aware of them, and it is easier to assemble a majority. Things that are addressed as human rights/social justice issues are not neccessarily issues that require a deep awareness of the world - you can pick them up on the news - as they are basically human interest. As such, it is more likely that people have formed an opinion one way or the other. People are also more aware of 'International Security', but it is a more divisive issue.
So I would say that the UN doesn't have a principal purpose, (a highly logical progression there ;) ) as it is a reflection of our views. It doesn't have a purpose as such, but there is an emphasis, if you follow me (I don't).

Make one little typo. :mad:

I notice no one commented on "soverenighty".

We in the People's Republic of Groot Gouda believe that the UN should be far more than just human rights. The NSUN is an international body with power of legislation. It is the main platform for international treaties, international cooperation. This can be on many grounds. The UN should be used to bring issues under the attention of nations, to say "think about this, and this is a solution", rather than simply say "do this".

I say "should" because unfortunately, the following observation from Krioval is quite true for the UN as it is now and has been in the past for several periods:

Take a look at some of the very early resolutions to see this effect. I have a problem with people passing shit resolutions, frankly, because the wording sounds "nice". "Don't kill dolphins" sounds nice. It also does nothing that a comprehensive wildlife proposal couldn't have handled, but the comprehensive proposal takes work.

However, we in the republic believe that there are things worth fighting for. That is why my nation is still in the UN, despite the crap that is being poured over us at times. Because every now and then, someone presents a resolution that is well thought out, well written and addresses an issue that needs international cooperation. I try to help those authors by promoting them, defending their resolution, while helping aspiring authors (or campaigning against them if they don't listen to criticism).

I fear the the UN will always stay a place where ego and short-sightedness will reign. But I won't quit. There are so much more worthwhile resolutions to write, and I'm going to stay until they're all written and passed. Whether that's human rights, international security, environmentalist, free trade or any other category.

(human rights is quite broad, though, compared to, say, gambling. That could explain the large amount of resolutions in that category. Nearly everything helping people is either human rights or social justice).

Though there are various purposes behind this organization, my government is curious about the principal purpose of the United Nations. Given the fact that nearly 1/3 of the UN resolutions that have been adopted in 2.5 years have been "Human Rights" issues, it might be suggested that the principal purpose of the United Nations is to promote civil liberties.

Is this true? Should the UN also strive to prevent international misunderstandings and deal with other issues, such as international security, shared resources, or the environment?
Just because Human rights issues are popular that does not mean we should forget about the issues that effect our every day lives. Whilst possibly not as important to humanity, they are nessessary for humanities continued existance and without the non humanities we would be less humane.(edit: This made perfect sense to me when i was writing it :D )
I would like to make your statement another way though!
Given the fact that nearly 2/3 of the UN resolutions that have been adopted in 2.5 years have not been "Human Rights" issues, it might be suggested that the principal purpose of the United Nations is not to promote civil liberties.

I've been thinking about this and can't help wondering if one of the reasons, or maybe the main reason, human rights resolutions are so populour is because they are the easiest to pass. It is a fact that while our opinions on international security (for example) can vary widely, most of us can agree, on principal at least, with human rights and freedoms.

The purpose of the United Nations must surely be, through international cooperation and democracy, to enforce and enable progress and champion causes that further the goals of equality, human rights and liberty for all. It must preserve our world(s) for future generations and where possible, both prevent violence from lawlessness factions and terrorism, with international policing and prevent the horror of war with negotiation and measured comporomise.
The future of the U.N. must be centred around more than human rights, for to solve a problem, you must solve the sum of its parts and not just the its individual components.
Finally, we should remember the wise words of Dag Hammarskjold.

"The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned."

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live the U.N. (and Compadria)!

I've been thinking about this and can't help wondering if one of the reasons, or maybe the main reason, human rights resolutions are so populour is because they are the easiest to pass. It is a fact that while our opinions on international security (for example) can vary widely, most of us can agree, on principal at least, with human rights and freedoms.

I think that is a good point. Economic issues are very sticky areas, and many environmental bills will effect how industries are run. They're the hardest to pass thats for certain, even just how certain legislation will be funded can make or break any bill.

Usually with human rights legislation the main opposition is from nations who don't want the UN to interfer with how they rule their own countries (and yet they become members of the UN for reasons unknown to the rest of us). When it comes to human rights we can say, ok don't deny these people for a job, don't deny them the right to vote, and most people are fine with that. If we try to say "ban fast food because it is bad for a persons health" or "Ban killing whales just to laugh at them and poke them with sticks" people start to complain.

I think another major issue is, no one here is educated in all fields. Many don't know how a dam works, or how credit works, and unlike real politicians we don't have acess to advisors or scientists. People start making claims that "my scientists say eating dolphins cures cancer" and as NS is detached from real life, we can always fall back on "well a special breed of dolphin that lives in my nation's waters cures cancer, can we still eat them?" and who makes a better arguement overrides truth in some instances. Given the various levels of education people have that play, and what they specialized in if they went onto higher learning, and not really wanting to look up or perform tests on what is the best source of electricity, certain bills are just harder to argue.

Finally, we should remember the wise words of Dag Hammarskjold.

"The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned."

Ah. Good old Dag. From what I've read he was a very wise man.

The principle purpose of the UN has, was, and ever shall be to provide a forum for enlightened nations to debate and commonly accept resolutions for the benefit of the nations themselves.

It has four primary goals or missions. Two are focused at the conduct of nations vis-a-vis each other (the first and third goals) and two are focused at the individuals who constitute the populace of our nations (the second and fourth goals).

Primarily, it is the United Nations' mission to save each other from the scourge of war. Because without peace, there is no basis for the preservation of national sovereignty or personal survival. This must come before anything else.

Therefore, peace-keeping is the UN's primary mission: to peacefully prevent, mitigate, negotiate, obviate, or ameliorate the conduct of war. It is often difficult to begin, difficult to achieve, and difficult to maintain, but this does not mean it is not the primary goal of the UN.

To avoid this truth is to undermine entirely the reasons for the very foundation of the UN, especially at its most extreme: to prevent a catatrophic, global war of unprecedented scale during the age of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

Once the threat of catastrophic global war is minimized, the UN thereafter turns its attention to mitigate and resolve regional international wars and then to internal rebellions and civil wars which threaten international stability and human rights on a massive scale.

One could call this, as interpreted by an individual a 'right to live in a state of peace.' However, it is a state-based consideration, not an individual right. Individuals can commit fatal deeds, such as killing, which can be ruled as crimes such as murder. Criminal organizations can be said to have 'gangland wars,' or 'drug wars,' but these are merely domestic or international crimes and police operations on a larger scale. Only nation states truly make war.

Secondly, once the primary mission of peace-keeping is upheld, the UN seeks to uphold human rights. Only when the society is at peace, and the individual is protected from the sufferance and risks of war may other rights be further explored.

Yet rights for the true, singular individual are usually not the purview of the UN. Usually, 'rights' apply to a large class of individuals, who each individually and together collectively share specific benefits granted by their rights.

Thirdly, the UN seeks to improve relations between nations by promoting international justice, treaties and laws. These are the rules and contracts by which nations interact with each other. Such legal constructs support the first mission by negociating terms of peaceful coexistence, and promoting rational conduct even over contentious issues.

Finally, returning to the individual's needs, the UN seeks to improve human welfare, whether through health care, education, economic or cultural improvements. These are usually considered above the basic, fundamental rights. Such initiatives promote qualities of life and higher goals to aspire towards, but are not basic guarantees.

Many people often confuse a human rights issue with a human welfare issue. Usually, the human right is something that is, once passed, a requirement, not an option or choice. It must be able to be substantially or tangibly observed or enacted.

Human welfare initiatives may promote a choice, but not require it. They may also cover aspects of human society which may be intangible or ideal.

For a theoretical example, a 'right to vote' can be made a human right, as the undertaking of elections and an individual's participation in such elections can be enacted and observed. But a 'right to health,' cannot be mandated. People may get sick and catch diseases regardless of legislation.

An initiative to work towards the treatment or end of a particular disease can be made a human welfare initiative, but not a human right.

What could be made a human right is access to medical treatment or cure, if it is available. However, because of the vast differences in the social, technical and economic capabilities of differing member nations, the UN often cannot mandate rights to such. It can only make human welfare initiatives, and incent and encourage its members to partake in those activities.

The Warzone of the Defenders is primarily interested in the first mission of the UN: the defense of regions and nations suffering the ravages of war.

As my region's UN delegate, I cannot agree to any resolution that ignores the first and foremost reason that the UN was created: to ensure peace between nations.

I would like to see 'The Furtherment of Democracy' category used in a manner that doesn't unduly hamper the functioning of non-democratic states.

I suspect I'll be waiting awhile.

OOC: I hope I am not utterly lambasted for this, but I saw the article on the UN Mandate (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Mandate) in the NS Wiki.

I thought it would be a good article to bring forward in the consideration of this thread, and also, to inform the community that I added some additional information to the document, particularly the sections on:

International Security (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Mandate#International_Security)

Human Welfare (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Mandate#Human_Welfare)

I've included some links in the document to the real-world UN site as well.

I know that sort of breaks the wall to the real-world, but this document clearly was highlighting the actual mission of the UN with the purpose of contrasting it with the role the UN serves in NationStates as a game.

Respectfully submitted,

OOC: I hope I am not utterly lambasted for this, but I saw the article on the UN Mandate (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Mandate) in the NS Wiki.

-snip-

I know that sort of breaks the wall to the real-world, but this document clearly was highlighting the actual mission of the UN with the purpose of contrasting it with the role the UN serves in NationStates as a game.

It is in no way out of line for you to post the link, nor are you at fault for "breaking the wall" between RL UN and NS UN. You don't need to worry about being lambasted (at least, not until the Fall, one-hit wonder, trolls start arriving) :).

To my knowledge, the discussion of Stephistan on what the mandate of the UN was had a two fold purpose and application. One, it was meant to discuss the RL UN and its mandate. Two, it was meant to see if that discussion could inform the "mandate" of the NS UN. In this context, using the RL UN to give general cues to what the NS UN might pursue, the posting and discussing of the RL UN mandate is very advantageous.

However, Stephistan took a sort of hard-anti-RP-line in her "conclusion" (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Mandate#Conclusion): "For the U.N. inside the game to be a fun and realistic experience we must try to keep it real. Stay as close to the real world as we can, because otherwise you might as well be playing Dungeons & Dragons"

Again, I agree that we should look at the RL UN charter and see how the NS UN might interact with it, but to advocate that the NS UN must arbitrarily "stay as close to the real world as can" seems a bit uninformed to me. Different exigencies produce different artifacts, so it is to be expected that a simulation which varies in any way from the actual event will take on a life of its own. Role-play is [i]supposed to have a certain degree of variance from reality. Saying that we "must keep the NS UN as close to the RL UN" seems to ignore that fact. It seems to say that if there's a variance between RL UN and the NS UN we're doing something wrong.

Obviously Sephistan is not anti-RP, as she founded and ran the Role Play University for a decent stint. However, I think when she wrote this she was trying to blend the experiences of the General forum and The United Nations. In the General forum, Stephistan had been very involved in RL debates. I fear that her conclusion was merely this imposition of her desired experience of NS (which included a lot of RL debate) into the NS UN.

Anyway, I think the RL UN should inform the NS UN, but the NS UN owes RL no allegiance. The NS UN must react to its own sitaution and produce the United Nations structure and mandate that is necessary in its own dealings.

Q: What is the principle purpose of the UN?

Answer: To make us all feel better that someone else is doing next to nothing about the worlds problems rather than yourself.

Q: What is the principle purpose of the UN?

Answer: To make us all feel better that someone else is doing next to nothing about the worlds problems rather than yourself.

Bravo!<Cheers and Whistles!><thunderous applause!> Somebody fetch a bouquet of flowers for this delegate. :D You sir, or madam are even more cynical about the UN than I(no small task). :eek: I hereby present you with this Order of the Treecat, the highest medal that can be bestowed on a non-citizen of the Palentine, and a gift certificate good for a sandwich,and Iron City beer at Primanti Bros. :D My hat is off to you!<doffs hat>
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Palentine