NationStates Jolt Archive

As the REgion of Love, Peace, and Safety is home to only one nation at present (Multiland), it can not yet put forward proposals to amend or remove resolutions (no endorsements due to the lack of nations within the region available to endorse Multiland), the Leadership are considering blatantly flouting resolutions which it takes issues with (such as Diplomatic Immunity, especially as Multiland has a law already which specifically states that diplomatic immunity can not and will not be offered to anyone without a specific permission from the Leader of Multiland).

What would happen to Multiland if it did flout some resolutions here and there but generally abided by most of them?

As the REgion of Love, Peace, and Safety is home to only one nation at present (Multiland), it can not yet put forward proposals to amend or remove resolutions (no endorsements due to the lack of nations within the region available to endorse Multiland), the Leadership are considering blatantly flouting resolutions which it takes issues with (such as Diplomatic Immunity, especially as Multiland has a law already which specifically states that diplomatic immunity can not and will not be offered to anyone without a specific permission from the Leader of Multiland).

What would happen to Multiland if it did flout some resolutions here and there but generally abided by most of them?

We won't try to answer the question asked by the honorable representative of Multiland. We'll leave that to more knowledgeable members. But we do want to clear up the honorable representative's misunderstanding of the "Diplomatic Immunity" resolution, which we co-authored.

Resolution #126, "Diplomatic Immunity", states that "the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving". If Multiland chooses not to grant diplomatic immunity to any foreign representatives, it is perfectly within its rights to do so. If it chooses to grant diplomatic immunity to some, but not to others, the same holds. It is not "flouting" or violating the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well, it seems I read it slightly wrong, but what about this part?

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches are inviolable from seizure or search by host nation officials, and exempt from customs and excise duties

In the above paragraph, it mentions nothing about the diplomat having to be immune for his/her goods/documents etc. to be searched, which effectively seems to be saying that as long as a person is a diplomat, regardless of whether they have been granted diplomatic immunity or not, their posessions can not be searched by the Multiland Intelligence Service (MIS - not to be confused with MI5) - though MIS would not search personal documents anyway without express permission from the writer/owner/other relevant person.

Well, it seems I read it slightly wrong, but what about this part?

PROCLAIMS that goods and documents in transit to or from to or from diplomatic missions and identified as diplomatic bags or pouches are inviolable from seizure or search by host nation officials, and exempt from customs and excise duties

In the above paragraph, it mentions nothing about the diplomat having to be immune for his/her goods/documents etc. to be searched, which effectively seems to be saying that as long as a person is a diplomat, regardless of whether they have been granted diplomatic immunity or not, their posessions can not be searched by the Multiland Intelligence Service (MIS - not to be confused with MI5) - though MIS would not search personal documents anyway without express permission from the writer/owner/other relevant person.

Not quite true. You're correct, though, that the system of diplomatic bags and diplomatic immunity are separate issues. The diplomatic bag or pouch is not the personal property of a diplomat. It is a means for official material to be transmitted to and from a diplomatic mission without being examined by customs inspectors, etc. It's a long-standing diplomatic practice. If you don't have such a system in place, your intelligence service could read the mission's classified correspondence (if unencrypted), gather samples of encrypted correspondence for code-breaking, study encryption devices, copy cryptographic material, etc. It has been abused in the past by diplomats who have used it to smuggle illegal items, etc. If you think that's a serious problem, you could simply prohibit anything from being identified as a diplomatic bag. Remember, though, that the nations you're dealing with would certainly do the same when it came to your own diplomatic missions.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As the REgion of Love, Peace, and Safety is home to only one nation at present (Multiland), it can not yet put forward proposals to amend or remove resolutions (no endorsements due to the lack of nations within the region available to endorse Multiland), the Leadership are considering blatantly flouting resolutions which it takes issues with (such as Diplomatic Immunity, especially as Multiland has a law already which specifically states that diplomatic immunity can not and will not be offered to anyone without a specific permission from the Leader of Multiland).

What would happen to Multiland if it did flout some resolutions here and there but generally abided by most of them?

Technically, you can't ignore resolutions. Once the resolution passes, the UN gnomes do their bit, and your nations profile and stats are changed to take the changes in legislation into account. It's all mechanical and you can't change it back apart from a repeal.

You can Roleplay non-compliance (I have roleplayed non-compliance of the legalisation of prostitution a couple of times when the subject pops up), but it doesn't not make any difference to the mechanics.

Well technically that's not entirely correct. Technically you can not ignore the effects of resolutons. These effects are automatically applied at the moment the UN resolution passes. Of course this creates the great cloud of unknowing ... what are the "effects" of a given resolution? Only the programmers (not the writers of the resolution) know for sure. Gennerally speaking this means stats and your choices for future occurances of issues (I'm not sure if issues are new issues are linked with the UN database of past issues or not, I would tend to think not.)


If we take "diplommatic immunity," I would have no idea what stats would be modified. I would have no idea what issues would be impacted, since I don't think there is a single issue that involves diplomatic immunity.

Everything else is a matter of forum role play and technically there is no mechanis to enforce forum role play other than forum role play. You may choose to react to issues based on your interpertation of resolutions, especially those resolutions passed when you were not a member, but this too is role play.

Also, the use of diplomatic bags to commit terrorism or commit any crime would, in practicle terms, violate the resolution as the government would need to know about it's use for this (seeing as it's the government sending it) and therefore violate the clause about the government wilfully misusing diplomatic immunity.

There are, really, two components of NS that are MOSTLY seperated - roleplay and gameplay. Gameplay works entirely within the mechanics of the game. From that perspective, the resolution will go into effect in full force, but you can override them intentionally afterwards.

Roleplay: the resolution theoretically goes into effect immediately and you can't override it - intentionally or otherwise. There's no real way to enforce this, prove this, claim this, etc - it just happens. There's a variety of attempted explanations, but it is a community enforced (rather than a rules or mechanics enforced) issue - so your real threat is not being recognized as a roleplayer. For some people, "big deal". For others, it means the world.

It should be noted that the title and text of a resolution are roleplay issues, the category and strength are gameplay issues. You can intentionally push roleplay into gameplay and vicaversa, only be cautious about it - as again, you could be ignored as a roleplayer.

There are, really, two components of NS that are MOSTLY seperated - roleplay and gameplay. Gameplay works entirely within the mechanics of the game. From that perspective, the resolution will go into effect in full force, but you can override them intentionally afterwards.

Roleplay: the resolution theoretically goes into effect immediately and you can't override it - intentionally or otherwise. There's no real way to enforce this, prove this, claim this, etc - it just happens. There's a variety of attempted explanations, but it is a community enforced (rather than a rules or mechanics enforced) issue - so your real threat is not being recognized as a roleplayer. For some people, "big deal". For others, it means the world.

It should be noted that the title and text of a resolution are roleplay issues, the category and strength are gameplay issues. You can intentionally push roleplay into gameplay and vicaversa, only be cautious about it - as again, you could be ignored as a roleplayer.

That's a very good explanation. Here's another:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450853

Nothing? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452886)

Nothing? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452886)

Actually, that's a pretty good approach to noncompliance, IMO. Congratulations to Multiland!

What would happen if a nation ignored a UN Resolution?
Prince Esheram Byron, The Chief Negotiator for the Realm and All round Nice Guy would stand before the Nations of the General Assembly and urge that the Offender was beaten with sticks with nails in the end of them.
Other than that?....... pretty much nothing.

Nothing? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452886)

But non-compliance can have unintended consequences. Like the death of several diplomats. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452886)

But non-compliance can have unintended consequences. Like the death of several diplomats. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452886)

Ah. The game is afoot. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.:)

First off, wasn't noncompliance :)

It was full compliance with a few laws enacted, within the limitations of the UN's Diplomatic Immunity Act, to ensure that, without breaking the UN Act, Multiland would still be able to monitor (without invading privacy - by reading personal documents for example) who and what comes into and goes out of the country, as well as to ensure that people entering the country could not, as has been seen in other countries, break the law and evade arrest.

Second, it panned out fine :)

No need for war, no dead diplomats.