NationStates Jolt Archive

Pending the in-depth examination, interpretation, and evaluation of all existing United Nations resolutions, the Principality of Thadrian has yet to apply for membership to that body. However, it has noted there is a major issue with resolutions number 110, "United Nations Security Act", which has further implications when considered in context with resolution 113, "UN Biological Weapons Ban", which has the possibility of creating an extremely threatening situation.

Resolution 110 establishes the right for all member nations to construct and utilize "...any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right." It is assumed that the latter part of this statement was introduced in order to disallow the forms of attack such as biological weapons.

However, the phrasing of this statement - "...except where previous legislation by this body ... has placed restrictions on that right" (text highlighted to present emphasis) presents a major loophole by not mentioning any legislation which may be passed by the United Nations in the future. As such, it could be argued that this resolution takes precedence over any future resolutions passed to limit weapons, granting United Nations member states all the advantages of being able to build and use these restricted forms of warfare as deterrents while at the same time condemning nations not a party to the UN for doing the same.

It is also noted that resolution 113 is designed to bar the path of any nation which desires to use biological weapons as a method of war. Given that resolution 113 was passed after resolution 110, it can be argued that it does not fall within the classification of weapons which the United Nations has passed legislation to restrict, and therefore is an acceptable means of defense for nations which are a party to the UN.

While it would be hoped that none of the United Nations' member states would seek to abuse this loophole, it nonetheless could be argued that the wording of resolution 110 gives clearance to build and use biological weapons.

The Principality of Thadrian, therefore, humbly proposes that a member state of the United Nations would propose a further resolution which forces United Nations member states to comply with restrictions on weapons made at any point in time, so long as said restriction is still in effect.

There was a moderation issue re: 113's conflicts with 110 and the moderators' eventual judgment was that any weapons ban can go through, so long as the proposal states that the class of weapons in question is "unnecessary for national defense," rendering 110 utterly useless. I support the repeal of 110 for the purposes of replacing with something ironclad and loophole-free. My own humble suggestion: a single declarative clause allowing all member states to produce any weapons they see fit (barring those previously banned) and don't mention "national defense" at all -- but at the same time outlaw the offensive use of nonconventional arms. That way, nations are limited to building nonconventional arms solely for the purposes of national defense, without a pesky "national defense" loophole the anti-sovereigntists can exploit.

While it would be hoped that none of the United Nations' member states would seek to abuse this loophole, it nonetheless could be argued that the wording of resolution 110 gives clearance to build and use biological weapons.

No, it doesn't.
DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.
CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and are unnecessary to national defense.
UN Biological Weapons Ban declares biological weapons unnecessary. This allows it to outlaw them.

His point concerns the word 'previous'. UNSA does not mean 'previous to UNSA'; it means previous to this present of moment of time.

His point concerns the word 'previous'. UNSA does not mean 'previous to UNSA'; it means previous to this present of moment of time.
We'll have to ask Texan Hotrodders about that, but I'm pretty sure it means previous as in "prior to the passage of UNSA".

We'll have to ask Texan Hotrodders about that, but I'm pretty sure it means previous as in "prior to the passage of UNSA".

Right. No, you're right, I was being foolish. I understand it now. Thank you.

"Previous resolution" does indeed apply to Resolutions that existed before UNSA was inacted. It was a required element to keep it from being deleted for contradicting a previous Resolution (the since Repealed ban on chemical weapons).

"Necessary for the defence of the nation" is a loophole that allows future Resolutions to ban weapons systems without running afoul of UNSA. This wasn't fully required, but a good idea to prevent UNSA from being deleted for violating the rules about banning future Resolutions.

There is no conflict between 110 and 113.

"Necessary for the defence of the nation" is a loophole that allows future Resolutions to ban weapons systems without running afoul of UNSA. This wasn't fully required, but a good idea to prevent UNSA from being deleted for violating the rules about banning future Resolutions.
Perhaps I am simply ignorant on a previous interpretation of something but altering the statement to read, "except where previous or future legislation ... has placed restrictions on that right" would not bar any future resolutions from taking effect.

This statement essentially declares that in any case where use of a weapon system is restricted, the resolution where said restriction takes place overrides the right of a nation to build it. Hence, any future resolutions which wish to place restrictions on weapons are not impeded in any way from doing so - they override this resolution, rather than come into conflict with it.

Further, resolutions which specifically allow certain types of weapons (eg a chemical weapons resolution making specific exceptions for pesticides, non-lethal countermeasures such as pepper spray, and so forth) would also not come into conflict with this resolution, as both would state that such weapons were allowed.

Perhaps I am simply ignorant on a previous interpretation of something but altering the statement to read, "except where previous or future legislation ... has placed restrictions on that right" would not bar any future resolutions from taking effect....which is entirely irrelevent since I never said anything to that affect. I was speaking about the current phrasing of the existing Resolution.

Furthermore, Repealing so that the UNSA could be altered in the way you suggest would make it utterly useless, and probably get it deleted. A Proposal to declare that "$item is legal unless it isn't" is a waste of the UN's time.

"Nuclear weapons are legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans them."
"Cars are legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans them."
"Killing homosexuals is legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans it."
"Smoking pot is legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans it."
"Masturbation is legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans it."
"Jumping on your left foot is legal unless a previous or future Resolution bans it."

What would be the point?

This statement essentially declares that in any case where use of a weapon system is restricted, the resolution where said restriction takes place overrides the right of a nation to build it....which is what happens every single time the UN bans something.

It would be as useful as a UN Resolution emphatically stating that Tuesday follows Monday.

"Previous resolution" does indeed apply to Resolutions that existed before UNSA was inacted. It was a required element to keep it from being deleted for contradicting a previous Resolution (the since Repealed ban on chemical weapons).
And the ban of landmines which is still in effect.

Furthermore, Repealing so that the UNSA could be altered in the way you suggest would make it utterly useless, and probably get it deleted. A Proposal to declare that "$item is legal unless it isn't" is a waste of the UN's time.

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

The first three parts are nothing but observations. The fourth encourages member states to arm themselves for defense - an action that any nation intent on preserving itself would surely perform on its own. The fifth part, as you stated, is a sweeping "You can use these weapons, as long as they aren't disallowed" statement.

I would propose, then, that Resolution 110 be repealed based on the following:

-It recommends an obvious course of action (have the ability to defend yourself)
-It esablishes no guidelines, regulations, or other forms of moderation for that course of action
-It states the obvious, in the form ot "All weapons not restricted, may be used"

Perhaps if you read this thread, it may help you understand the thinking behind this resolution. It was written as a national soverigny resolution and its lack of teeth isn't an accident ;).

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428864)

So, unless I'm mistaken, then, the purpose of this resolution was simply to safeguard the rights of the UN's member states?

So, unless I'm mistaken, then, the purpose of this resolution was simply to safeguard the rights of the UN's member states?

Yes. As stated, TH is a sovereigntist, so he's big on safeguarding national rights.

So, unless I'm mistaken, then, the purpose of this resolution was simply to safeguard the rights of the UN's member states?

Mostly. But I did want to encourage nations to make sure the people in their nations were safer, because I'm a sentimental fellow and would like for everyone to take reasonable measures to prevent or stop attacks.

I would say to the honourable delegate, in response to his concerns, that they are unfounded, as any attempt to replace or update legislation would automatically trigger and require an appeal of the prior legislation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Mmm. In which case, wouldn't it be easier to have a single resolution not dissimilar to the tenth ammendment of the United States constitution, which essentially reads "Everything which is not controlled by the federal government (or the UN, in this case) is the right and responsibility of the states (member states)"?

I feel it would make sense that, if you wanted resolutions which safeguarded the rights of the UN's member states, instead of only addressing one issue or one element at a time it would be prefferable to address all of them with the statement "All rights, laws, policies, and other aspects of government which are not specifically addressed, regulated, moderated, or otherwise restricted by an existing United Nations resolution, shall be the domain solely of each sovereign member nation to address as they see fit, so long as their actions fall within the bounds of conduct acceptable for UN member nations."

As for encouragement to ensure the people of a nation are well guarded from threat, is it not one of the core functions of a government to ensure that those who reside within it are adequately protected from harm? As I believe I said before - I don't believe that a rational or responsible government would overlook its own national safety.

Compadria - Perhaps I am unfamiliar with your method of speach, but I am unsure of what you are trying to say. From my interpretation, my concerns about resolution 110 are unfounded because "any attempt to replace or update legislation would automatically trigger and retuire an appeal (repeal?) of the prior legislation".
It does not seem to me that, because a concern requires a previous resolution to be struck, that it is therefore without basis, or unfounded. With all due respect, could you please rephrase yourself that I may better understand you?

My apologies to you Thadrian, it's true I have a rather convoluted manner of expressing myself, I'll try and re-phrase therefore:

What I meant to say was that since it is impossible to 'amend' or 'update' legislation, a repeal is always required to introduce a new element to a previous resolution. So for this reason, if you are worried about a past resolution taking precedence, the mechanics of the process of creating a new resolution mean that the old resolution would automatically fall out of use.

Perhaps I have mis-understood your concern, if so, I apologise. As an additional note, I did mean appeal. Thank you for correcting me.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Naturally, when a resolution is replaced with an updated version the old one falls out of use. This was more or less my original intention: to replace what I thought (incorrectly, I now see) was a slightly flawed resolution with one that lacked this flaw.

Naturally, when a resolution is replaced with an updated version the old one falls out of use. This was more or less my original intention: to replace what I thought (incorrectly, I now see) was a slightly flawed resolution with one that lacked this flaw.

Welcome to the NSUN. You can't replace a resolution until the old one is repealed.

Mmm. In which case, wouldn't it be easier to have a single resolution not dissimilar to the tenth ammendment of the United States constitution, which essentially reads "Everything which is not controlled by the federal government (or the UN, in this case) is the right and responsibility of the states (member states)"?

Rights and duties of UN States, Article 3

I feel it would make sense that, if you wanted resolutions which safeguarded the rights of the UN's member states, instead of only addressing one issue or one element at a time it would be prefferable to address all of them with the statement "All rights, laws, policies, and other aspects of government which are not specifically addressed, regulated, moderated, or otherwise restricted by an existing United Nations resolution, shall be the domain solely of each sovereign member nation to address as they see fit, so long as their actions fall within the bounds of conduct acceptable for UN member nations."

The issue of protection is actually more towards preventing resolutions, rather than because they want the state to have the power it already has.

As for encouragement to ensure the people of a nation are well guarded from threat, is it not one of the core functions of a government to ensure that those who reside within it are adequately protected from harm? As I believe I said before - I don't believe that a rational or responsible government would overlook its own national safety.

I'm sure that I could provide some examples of governments both present and throughout history that are neither rational nor responsible - but I won't for fear of stepping on toes. Neither issue is guaranteed.

Welcome to the NSUN. You can't replace a resolution until the old one is repealed.
I am aware of this; although in retrospect, I did not explicitly state that I believed resolution 110 should be repealed, as I thought that suggesting a replacement for it would imply such a course of action. I will be more careful in the future to be specific about this; thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Rights and duties of UN States, Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Perhaps I am looking at the wrong resolution or the wrong section, but it is to my understanding that this passage bars member states of the United Nations from interfering with one another, rather than declaring each member state possesses whatever rights are not specifically limited/regulated/etc by the United Nations.

Although, taken on the whole, Resolution 49 does accomplish what I had intended my second proposal in this thread to do - all rights not moderated by a resolution are the domain of each individual member nation. In hindsight, it may not have been wise to bring up an issue without completely reading all the existing resolutions.

Having read Resolution 49 further, though, I notice that Article 2 and 4, taken together with Article 10, state the same concept as Resolution 110. A nation has the right to defend itself, a nation has the right to act within its own country as it sees fit (implying construction and research of weapons systems), so long as it remains within the bounds of all treaties and international laws (such as UN resolutions) of which it is a party to.
Which again, brings me to state I do not believe resolution 110 is necessary.

The issue of protection is actually more towards preventing resolutions, rather than because they want the state to have the power it already has.
Unless I have misunderstood something, it is to my understanding that resolutions which bar the creation of future resolutions (excluding those in direct conflict to it; such as the bio-weapons ban proposal barring the creation of a bio-weapons allowance resolution) are not allowed? Please correct me if I am wrong. I am, as you surely know, new to this world of politics and there are doubtlessly many nuances or judgements made in the forums of which I am unaware.

I'm sure that I could provide some examples of governments both present and throughout history that are neither rational nor responsible - but I won't for fear of stepping on toes. Neither issue is guaranteed.
Pehaps I should rephrase that: I don't believe a country with an interest in preserving it's own existence would ignore its ability to defend itself from attack. A country does not necessarily need to be entirely rational nor entirely responsible in order to take interest in it's own self-preservation.

I am aware of this; although in retrospect, I did not explicitly state that I believed resolution 110 should be repealed, as I thought that suggesting a replacement for it would imply such a course of action. I will be more careful in the future to be specific about this; thank you for bringing this to my attention.

As long as you're aware of that

Perhaps I am looking at the wrong resolution or the wrong section, but it is to my understanding that this passage bars member states of the United Nations from interfering with one another, rather than declaring each member state possesses whatever rights are not specifically limited/regulated/etc by the United Nations.

Sorry, my bad. Article 2 is the one I'm looking at

Although, taken on the whole, Resolution 49 does accomplish what I had intended my second proposal in this thread to do - all rights not moderated by a resolution are the domain of each individual member nation. In hindsight, it may not have been wise to bring up an issue without completely reading all the existing resolutions.

Having read Resolution 49 further, though, I notice that Article 2 and 4, taken together with Article 10, state the same concept as Resolution 110. A nation has the right to defend itself, a nation has the right to act within its own country as it sees fit (implying construction and research of weapons systems), so long as it remains within the bounds of all treaties and international laws (such as UN resolutions) of which it is a party to.
Which again, brings me to state I do not believe resolution 110 is necessary.

Yeah, it's only purpose is to protect that right from being mandated against.

Unless I have misunderstood something, it is to my understanding that resolutions which bar the creation of future resolutions (excluding those in direct conflict to it; such as the bio-weapons ban proposal barring the creation of a bio-weapons allowance resolution) are not allowed? Please correct me if I am wrong. I am, as you surely know, new to this world of politics and there are doubtlessly many nuances or judgements made in the forums of which I am unaware.

Having been there when it happened, I do indeed know why. Resolution 105(?) National Systems of Tax had originally been designed around the concept of protecting nations ability to design their own tax system. On paper, that wasn't what it did, but it did it nonetheless and it was acknowledged as such. Indeed, the legality debate focused around this and ended up approving it. This snowballed to resolutions 109 and 110 which, after the massive curfuffle including Vastiva getting furious about bad precedents being set a month or so earlier, they felt precedent really had shown that it was legal.

I believe the actual words from Hack's mouth was something along the lines of "we'd like to delete all 3, but that isn't fair/we can't do that/something so we're going to let this one go through"

Pehaps I should rephrase that: I don't believe a country with an interest in preserving it's own existence would ignore its ability to defend itself from attack. A country does not necessarily need to be entirely rational nor entirely responsible in order to take interest in it's own self-preservation.

The issue, again, isn't whether a country will or will not defend itself. The issue is entirely whether your country will tell my country that I can't use X weapon for whatever reason because you think the use of X weapon is immoral/horrendous/dangerous/etc. If you can prove that I don't need it for defense, then you can still attempt to ban it.

I'm afraid I fail to see how Resolution 110 does more to safeguard the rights of a nation to protect itself than resolution 49 does. Both bestow upon all UN member nations the right to defend themself, and the right to produce weapons so long as they are within those allowed by the UN.