NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like your thoughts and support on my propoal:

Collective Sercuirity Act:

Synopsis: Any attack on one member of the UN will be considered an attack on all the members of the UN.

That one sentence will encourage peace talks, deter wars and encourage more countries to join the UN.

Expansion: Any unprovoked attack and/or declaration of war on one country who is the member of the United Nations will be considered by the other members of the United Nations as an attack and/or declaration of war on themselves.

As of this typing they are 31,848 members. It is hard to imagine a country or a league of countries willing to face the wrath of almost 32 thousand countries.

This act does not create an agency to facilitate the military actions of the countries.

This act does not force members to respond to an attack on another member. It only requires members to recognize it as an attack themselves.

This act does not force members to enter wars started by a member of the UN.

There are times when one UN member nation attacks another under what are considered 'national security' and 'national sovereignty' issues.

What should happen, ideally, is for the nation initiating hostilities to first appeal to the UN, to state the reason for a strike against or invasion of another member nation. For instance, to take pre-emptive action with clear proof of immanent hostilities and intents from the other nation.

There could be a select convocation of neutral nation states to judge the evidence and decide whether the issue warranted military action, or ruled that peaceful means should be used to resolve the issue between the two states.

If the aggressor state decided to go forward unilaterally with the attack, or if both nations, or multiple nations decided to fall to war, there should be increasing tiers of response from UN member nations. Recall that some UN member states might support the aggressor in their cause.

We would not wish to have a UN 'civil war' where member states were drawn to one side or the other. Otherwise, we would fail in our main charge: to prevent a calamitous world war.

While war is reprehensible, and your concept to use the collective power of the many to keep the few or the one in check is ideologically strong, it needs to take into consideration the sad truth: the causes of war are not yet wholly eradicated, even within the United Nations, except perhaps amongst the most enlightened of nations.

Warzone of the Defenders is a region committed to assisting other regions defend themselves from external aggression. We see our mission to protect others from threats or prosecution of war. Not all of our member states are UN states. Indeed, the majority are not members of the UN. But our region's purpose should support the UN's goals of establishing and maintaining peace between nations.

Surely thousands of other nation states have committed themselves selflessly in years past to defend against such attacks.

There are limits to response in times of attack as well. Not all states' militaries can simply leave their regions to go assist in the defense of other regions. As UN delegate for my region, Listeneisse has to maintain a defensive posture in our region, and would be unable to respond directly.

Other nations and regions can send word to our region, either to our UN delegate or to individual members states, about their being attacked. We can then decide individually or collectively how to respond.

Perhaps there can be other ways to alert UN delegates about new outbreaks of war between member states, for the rapid response to such crises?

Take into consideration these issues before drafting any formal resolution.

What should happen, ideally, is for the nation initiating hostilities to first appeal to the UN, to state the reason for a strike against or invasion of another member nation. For instance, to take pre-emptive action with clear proof of immanent hostilities and intents from the other nation.

There could be a select convocation of neutral nation states to judge the evidence and decide whether the issue warranted military action, or ruled that peaceful means should be used to resolve the issue between the two states.

If the aggressor state decided to go forward unilaterally with the attack, or if both nations, or multiple nations decided to fall to war, there should be increasing tiers of response from UN member nations. Recall that some UN member states might support the aggressor in their cause.

We would not wish to have a UN 'civil war' where member states were drawn to one side or the other. Otherwise, we would fail in our main charge: to prevent a calamitous world war.

While war is reprehensible, and your concept to use the collective power of the many to keep the few or the one in check is ideologically strong, it needs to take into consideration the sad truth: the causes of war are not yet wholly eradicated, even within the United Nations, except perhaps amongst the most enlightened of nations.

Warzone of the Defenders is a region committed to assisting other regions defend themselves from external aggression. We see our mission to protect others from threats or prosecution of war. Not all of our member states are UN states. Indeed, the majority are not members of the UN. But our region's purpose should support the UN's goals of establishing and maintaining peace between nations.

Surely thousands of other nation states have committed themselves selflessly in years past to defend against such attacks.

There are limits to response in times of attack as well. Not all states' militaries can simply leave their regions to go assist in the defense of other regions. As UN delegate for my region, Listeneisse has to maintain a defensive posture in our region, and would be unable to respond directly.

Other nations and regions can send word to our region, either to our UN delegate or to individual members states, about their being attacked. We can then decide individually or collectively how to respond.

Perhaps there can be other ways to alert UN delegates about new outbreaks of war between member states, for the rapid response to such crises?

Take into consideration these issues before drafting any formal resolution.

This resolution will increase countries willingness to go through talks. With the threat of a formibidable size force behind countires, war becomes the very last resort.

To response to the question of whether national armies can easily leave their regions, the resolution clearly states that governments are not forced to respond but only requires that members consider it an attack on themselves.

Inconclusion, collective sercuirity deters attacks on member states, increances peace talks, does not force states into sensless conflicts.

I do suggest a copy editor for whatever resolution is written.

Such words as 'security' need to be properly spelled, or the proposal will be doomed on poor wording alone.

Ok Lets have a look at this.......

Collective Sercuirity Act:Spelling! Collective Security Act

Synopsis: Any attack on one member of the UN will be considered an attack on all the members of the UN.Requiring all UN Members to go to war? .... Illegal, and probably impossible.

That one sentence will encourage peace talks, deter wars and encourage more countries to join the UN.How? may i add at this juncture that Non UN States outnumber UN States by a huge Margin.

Expansion: Any unprovoked attack and/or declaration of war on one country who is the member of the United Nations will be considered by the other members of the United Nations as an attack and/or declaration of war on themselves.This is repetition of what you have previously written.

As of this typing they are 31,848 members. It is hard to imagine a country or a league of countries willing to face the wrath of almost 32 thousand countries.While this is a daunting number for a single Nation there are many groups of nations and regions who are not allied to the UN.

This act does not create an agency to facilitate the military actions of the countries.As this too would be Illegal as the UN does not have an Official Army.

This act does not force members to respond to an attack on another member. It only requires members to recognize it as an attack themselves.thus dwindling the effect of your previous comment regarding Numbers of UN Members! E.G. I attack a UN Nation. The others recognise it but do nothing as it is not a direct attack.

This act does not force members to enter wars started by a member of the UN.What happens if a UN Member attacks a UN Member?

Summary of my comments....
Back to the drawing board and i personally suggest your proposal Bin for this one! :sniper: