NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN Delegate for my region, Tanganyika Territory, has just proposed the repeal of UN Resolution 50, "UN Space Consortium".

The following is the description of the repeal:

REPEAL "UN SPACE CONSORTIUM"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Proposed by: Tanganyika Territory

Arguement:
It must be recognized that UN Resolution 50 states "no nation can claim title to the Moon"

WHEREAS it must be recognized, however, that communist states do not claim title over areas, as they do not have private ownership. Therefore, communal societies should be allowed to establish communities on the Moon.

WHEREAS, this Resolution 50 MUST be repealed, so that a new resolution can be drawn which will address these issues, and the also the issue of the "Provisional Board of Directors" and its legitimacy, its components, and a greater definition of its powers in order to ensure continued peace and unity in space exploration.

Voting Ends: Wednesday November 2nd, 2005


Clearly, changes need to be made to the UN Space Consortium.

Please, approve this repeal, so that it may go before the UN for voting. It deserves an up or down vote.

It is currently on page 5 of UN proposals, as of Monday October 31st

The second clause is very short and very sweeping. I feel it is the function of a repeal to highlight current problems: what are the issues of legitimacy? what are the problems with its present powers? Your delegate really could have taken the time to expand on these points. At present, it's just convincing enough for me to support it.

The UN Delegate for my region, Tanganyika Territory, has just proposed the repeal of UN Resolution 50, "UN Space Consortium". I'm a retired member of the UNSC - so this is one of the subjects I'm very interested to see raised in the UN.

Arguement:
It must be recognized that UN Resolution 50 states "no nation can claim title to the Moon"

WHEREAS it must be recognized, however, that communist states do not claim title over areas, as they do not have private ownership. Therefore, communal societies should be allowed to establish communities on the Moon. A state does not have private ownership of land. Private ownership is land not under public/state control. I agree communism does not have private land - indeed it is all owned by the state. Thus communist states are not exempt under this proposal and your arguement is null.

Therefore Hirota has to express it's opposition to this proposed repeal. Come back with a better arguement and I'll listen (I'm not especially pro or anti UNSC, and I'd like to think I'm open minded about such things).

A state does not have private ownership of land. Private ownership is land not under public/state control. I agree communism does not have private land - indeed it is all owned by the state. Thus communist states are not exempt under this proposal and your arguement is null.
Not strictly true. An anarcho-communist system will not have state ownership of land but common ownership.

Ecopoeia sees no pressing need for reform of UNSC at this time, but we are amenable to persuasion.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Not strictly true. An anarcho-communist system will not have state ownership of land but common ownership. So could be considered as being under public ownership? ;)

Aren't there actually a number of NS nations, and at least one region, that already claim to be located on the Moon?

There are countless states which claim to be located on the Moon, and various other planets.

Why should we allow states to have rights to establish state on other planets, and not the Moon?

Furthermore, the Provisional Board is really wwwwaaaayyy to vague to be left "as is".

We should have a uniform approach to all celestial bodies, not just the Moon. Therefore, the "Space" Consortium, which really has little to do with space and more to do with the Moon, should be repealed in favour of the development of a better resolution to address all of these very important issues.

There are countless states which claim to be located on the Moon, and various other planets.
Yes, there are several: clicky (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=The%20Moon) clicky (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Moon) clicky (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Mars) clicky (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=The%20Pleiades)
There are many others besides these.

Why should we allow states to have rights to establish state on other planets, and not the Moon?

Furthermore, the Provisional Board is really wwwwaaaayyy to vague to be left "as is".

We should have a uniform approach to all celestial bodies, not just the Moon. Therefore, the "Space" Consortium, which really has little to do with space and more to do with the Moon, should be repealed in favour of the development of a better resolution to address all of these very important issues.
I agree, it should be repealed. But in the interest of international cooperation in space I would prefer a repeal/replace as you have suggested.

wow! something different to the old 'we live on another planet so wont affect us and heaps of others' repeal of this resolution.... actually, just reading over the arguments, since nations do claim to be on the moon, and also the argument within the repeal, this resolution is pretty redundant. maybe if all this information could be put into a repeal, maybe we could get one based on redundancy.... either that, or a UN RP to kick those nations off....