NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that the UN's resolutions are a mixture of prescriptions, prohibitions, recommendations, and opinions, is it time to establish a court to deal with any ambiguities, fix the law, and allow for proper enforcement of resolutions?

Some examples of uncertainties in resolutions, in no particular order, are:

UN Res. #75 - The Nuclear Terrorism Act
[article 1. "PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations". Would this include knowledge, diagrams, research data, expertise, etc?]

#41 - END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS
[the old chestnut - what is "cruel and unusual punishment"?]

#44 - Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill
[what are "basic services" for the purposes of this legislation?]

#9 - Keep The World Disease-Free!
["Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory". Is this a right, or can the nation charge for this service?]

#61 - Abortion Rights
["no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion". If a nation puts a charge on abortions, does this interfere with the woman's right? Only if the woman is below a certain level of income? If a nation requires abortions to be administered only by doctors who have been specially licensed for this purpose, does this interfere with the woman's right? What if a nation of 5 billion allowed abortion, but restricted the number of premises for this purpose to one small unit in the middle of nowhere?]

The danger would be that the UN would be seen as imposing itself onto other nations, so perhaps the court could be appeal-only, with cases refered by the highest court of each nation. Even if it only gave advisory opinions, it might settle the law and provide for more certainty.

I agree.

Come up with a resolution to draft it, let the players (not gnomes) staff the court, and I'll back it.

The UN rules say that all new commitee's must be staffed by gnomes, unfortunately.

The other option is to use the Pretenama Panel, which is staffed by real people (as it was created before the new rules). But then you have a House of Cards rule violation.

Would a court be counted as a committee?

The new rules say UN resolutions must do more than just create a committee; if the resolution was worded so that UN members had to allow their citizens the right of appeal from the highest court in the country, this would put it within the civil rights category.

Also, the resolution could say that in international disputes between UN members over UN resolutions, the UN court would be the final arbiter.

UN Res. #75 - The Nuclear Terrorism Act
[article 1. "PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations". Would this include knowledge, diagrams, research data, expertise, etc?]
Hmph. Most times people are wondering what is meant by "known terrorist organizations" ("known" by the nation or by the UN?). I've never heard any considerations on what would be included by "technologies". I put the vagueness in intentionally, by the way, because the UN would likely never come to an adequate consensus on those issues (what is and isn’t a terrorist organization, and which technologies are legal for distribution, etc.)

In general, I'd say that I'm fine with a UN Court of Justice, so long as it is in an advisory role. I'm not sure there needs to be an appeal function to get to it (as an "advisory" UN Court of Justice wouldn't be a risk for enforcement of any activism). I'd also say it could be a mighty fine role-play.

As far as who sits on the Court, if it comes down to it, just say "ESTABLISHES a court of nine to do such and such", without spelling out who is on the court, or how they're selected. That way, you avoid possible rules violations and open things up to the RPers (to put their own guys on the court in an RP, for example).

My understanding is that "mystical beings" are the only ones allowed to be put in committees (and presumably this court) because there's not going to be a game mechanic for a nation to be on the court (your nation'll never get a badge "court member" next to the "UN member" badge) as explained in the FAQ, it has to be able to be assumed that the committee/court is working behind the scenes staffed by mystical beings, if no one takes up the role-play, which means the proposal can't be written that nations take seats on the court.

The new rules say UN resolutions must do more than just create a committee; if the resolution was worded so that UN members had to allow their citizens the right of appeal from the highest court in the country, this would put it within the civil rights category.

Also, the resolution could say that in international disputes between UN members over UN resolutions, the UN court would be the final arbiter.
Hm, I'm not too fond of that idea. But, of course, it's your proposal.

I would prefer filling the "not just a committee" requirement by making the proposal more broad--a "promote just jurisprudence" proposal--which gives some advice or promotion for selecting judges and/or juries (in judicial systems that have judges and/or juries) and for how judicial systems might maintain justice (such as having judges recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise, or maintaining security at the place of court, etc.). Then you add the UN Court of Justice to give advisory readings to how laws are UN resolutions are carried out on a national level.

We could roleplay as the gnomes who staff the committie. It would give players a chance to decide what the gnomes rule on, while not violating the concept of UN gnomes.

Two excellent suggestions -

I would prefer filling the "not just a committee" requirement by making the proposal more broad--a "promote just jurisprudence" proposal--which gives some advice or promotion for selecting judges and/or juries (in judicial systems that have judges and/or juries) and for how judicial systems might maintain justice (such as having judges recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise, or maintaining security at the place of court, etc.).

The UN could suggest that UN members set up a court independent of the UN, but whose remit is the scrutiny of UN resolutions. The court could be established with its own charter at an international meeting restricted to UN members. This would mean it was outside of the UN's 'gnomes' rule, but established by and for UN members.

We could roleplay as the gnomes who staff the committie. It would give players a chance to decide what the gnomes rule on, while not violating the concept of UN gnomes.

Also very workable. Lastly...

Hm, I'm not too fond of that idea. But, of course, it's your proposal.
Actually, since leaving my last region, I lack the two endorsements. Maybe this discussion can be taken forward to the proposal stage by another nation once there is some kind of consensus.

[edit] - (this also goes for the 'Polluter Pays' draft).

if you give the NSUN a court thats another step towards a one world order.

handing out law and order is a function of a nation not the NSUN.

if you give the NSUN a court thats another step towards a one world order.

handing out law and order is a function of a nation not the NSUN.

Not if it only gives advisory opinions.

Not if it only gives advisory opinions.

So long as we don't have to pay for it, we have no objection to creating a toothless organ we can ignore.

I would prefer filling the "not just a committee" requirement by making the proposal more broad--a "promote just jurisprudence" proposal.

How about a proposal stating, reinforcing, and recommending certain concepts of the 'rule of law' and natural justice - no sanction without breach...independence of the judiciary...proportionality of sentences to crimes...no retroactive application of legislation, etc.

How about a proposal stating, reinforcing, and recommending certain concepts of the 'rule of law' and natural justice - no sanction without breach...independence of the judiciary...proportionality of sentences to crimes...no retroactive application of legislation, etc.

Or, as some might see it, an attempt to turn the whole of the NSUN in to a democracy.

How about a proposal stating, reinforcing, and recommending certain concepts of the 'rule of law' and natural justice - no sanction without breach...independence of the judiciary...proportionality of sentences to crimes...no retroactive application of legislation, etc.

I couldn't agree with this. It's a completely different proposal. You're trying to reform our national judiciaries when they work just fine. An international advisory body...sure. But fucking with our courts? Nope, sorry, no support.

Just leave it as advisory. If a rouge nation does not obey what the court says, the UN nations can take care of that rouge nation.

I cannot approve this. It seems too ambiguous. I could getbehind it if it was specified that the Court cannot repeal my Courts' rulings. Otherwise, you are just attacking national sovereignty, and that is really what I care about the most. So no.

You're trying to reform our national judiciaries when they work just fine. An international advisory body...sure. But fucking with our courts? Nope, sorry, no support.

Have you noticed how the draft says "stating...reinforcing...recommending"? In other words, it's an advisory proposal, like many of the proposals the UN has passed. So no, the UN would not be, to use your elegant phrase, "fucking with our courts".

To state a concept, such as equal rights etc, and acknowledge its fairness, is not legislating on behalf of national governments.

I have no guarantee of the wording, though, do I? If you state a principle of law and declare that all UN nations must abide by it, then you clearly are meddling. If you limit to a solely advisory one, then I would have no strong opposition. However, until you present a draft, I will have no reserve in expressing my concerns, as I have no way of knowing they won't be borne out in the actual proposal.

. I could getbehind it if it was specified that the Court cannot repeal my Courts' rulings.

"We killed ten million innocent people using landmines. However, our courts said those deaths were justified, since laws say we can't use landmines, but we can place landmines in the ground, you know, for deceration. Plus, we did not get those landmines to explode! Those innocent people walked on those landmines...that why they exploded! They are responsible for their own deaths! Rather, we shall fine those innocent people for damaging our beautiful landmines!

What? You say our court's ruling is wrong? That our court was rigged! But it's our court! Our court knows more than any other court! So hah!"

Uh...NO.

"We killed ten million innocent people using landmines. However, our courts said those deaths were justified, since laws say we can't use landmines, but we can place landmines in the ground, you know, for deceration. Plus, we did not get those landmines to explode! Those innocent people walked on those landmines...that why they exploded! They are responsible for their own deaths! Rather, we shall fine those innocent people for damaging our beautiful landmines!

What? You say our court's ruling is wrong? That our court was rigged! But it's our court! Our court knows more than any other court! So hah!"

Uh...NO.

I think I might misworded my concern. What I meant was that the Court should not be able to repeal my Courts' decisions on matters not covered by UN Law. Example: The UN has no ban on the death penalty. If my Courts approve it, the UN Court should have no right to ban it for me (while the UN has no law against it, at least). I hope that clears it up.

What I meant was that the Court should not be able to repeal my Courts' decisions on matters not covered by UN Law.

Exactly. But on the other hand, should your courts be able to make up their own interpretations of what the UN means? I think the national sovereignty issue can be overstated since the decision to join the UN in the first place is an act of national sovereigny, and the power of the UN is delegated to it by its members, and only held temporarily. Any nation can take this power back at any time. The UN would only constitute a new world order if its members had no choice about membership.

Exactly. But on the other hand, should your courts be able to make up their own interpretations of what the UN means? I think the national sovereignty issue can be overstated since the decision to join the UN in the first place is an act of national sovereigny, and the power of the UN is delegated to it by its members, and only held temporarily. Any nation can take this power back at any time. The UN would only constitute a new world order if its members had no choice about membership.
Agree. About my Courts interpreting stuff, unless you want to completely change the UN works, individual nations are kind of encouraged to interpret, since in the interest of getting stuff to be appropriate for every memeber nation, UN law must be open to interpretaion, so individual states can adapt the law to its individual country's needs.

I think I might misworded my concern. What I meant was that the Court should not be able to repeal my Courts' decisions on matters not covered by UN Law. Example: The UN has no ban on the death penalty. If my Courts approve it, the UN Court should have no right to ban it for me (while the UN has no law against it, at least). I hope that clears it up.

Ah. Okay. Sorry.

Agree. About my Courts interpreting stuff, unless you want to completely change the UN works, individual nations are kind of encouraged to interpret, since in the interest of getting stuff to be appropriate for every memeber nation, UN law must be open to interpretaion, so individual states can adapt the law to its individual country's needs.

Definitely. This is why any court would be more acceptable to UN members as an advisory body. Alternatively, we could look at setting up a UN Law Commission, whose remit would still include interpretation and advice re. UN resolutions, but could also suggest ideas for new resolutions, repeals, improvements to existing resolutions, etc.

Our position is that any body which can provide standards of practice is worthwhile. For example, many countries have a separation of religion and politics. The fact that religion cannot dictate rules to the government in these countries does not make the standards and morals of that religion useless.

Pursuant to the promotion of democracy and justice throughout the international community,

Convinced of the right of all persons to be treated fairly by their governments,

Recognising that rights do not create powers by and of themselves, but require responsible enforcement,

Persuaded by the role of a just and vigilant legal system in the attainment of these goals,

The UN reiterates and commends the following ideals of the rule of law and natural justice as an aid to good governance and the integrity of compliance with UN Resolutions;

1. The independence of the judiciary.

2. No sanction without breach of the law.

3. Proportionality of sanctions to crimes.

4. The separation of powers.

5. Equality of all citizens before the law.

6. The right of each party to legal proceedings to submit a case.

7. Consistent application of legal rules by the judiciary.

Further to the attainment of the above mentioned ideals, the UN encourages the establishment by its members of a chartered legal body, the members of whom are elected under the rules of that charter, and whose purpose shall be the scrutiny of cases involving UN Resolutions submitted to it by member states.

Suggestions, additions, and constructive criticism appreciated.

Nice example of RL injustice and corrupt court proceedings:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20051110/lf_nm/uzbekistan_justice_dc

Mickey Mouse justice at its finest.

Pursuant to the promotion of democracy and justice throughout the international community,


Well - that takes away my support right off the bat. Why is everyone so set on pursuing democracy again?


Convinced of the right of all persons to be treated fairly by their governments,


Ok.


Recognising that rights do not create powers by and of themselves, but require responsible enforcement,


I prefer upholding, rather than enforcing, but I am not sure "upholdment" is a word :}


Persuaded by the role of a just and vigilant legal system in the attainment of these goals,


Ok.


The UN reiterates and commends the following ideals of the rule of law and natural justice as an aid to good governance and the integrity of compliance with UN Resolutions;


Natural justice is generally speaking in contradiction to the rule of law. Natural justice says the weak die and the strong survive, and the rule of law tends to say that shouldn't be/isn't the case.


1. The independence of the judiciary.


Where is that cited in a UN resolution?


2. No sanction without breach of the law.


Ok.


3. Proportionality of sanctions to crimes.


Ok.


4. The separation of powers.


Where is that cited in a UN resolution? And which powers require seperating?


5. Equality of all citizens before the law.


Kind of ok, except in nations where convicts are not permitted to vote, cause that is hardly equal.


6. The right of each party to legal proceedings to submit a case.


Where is that cited in a UN resolution?


7. Consistent application of legal rules by the judiciary.


Erm - sort of okay, except I would like to know exactly what you mean by consistant? (If Person A gets five years for killing someone, does Person B have to get five years as well?)

Edit

Also - is this consistant with in a nation, or within the UN?



Further to the attainment of the above mentioned ideals, the UN encourages the establishment by its members of a chartered legal body, the members of whom are elected under the rules of that charter, and whose purpose shall be the scrutiny of cases involving UN Resolutions submitted to it by member states.


Totally going to ignore this.


Suggestions, additions, and constructive criticism appreciated.

Well - I dislike the fact democracy is being pushed on every nation, some of the things you are trying to protect are not actually enshrined in UN law as far as I am aware (though if you can prove otherwise, I will be willing to accept it) and, as such, have no place in this proposal (that is if you are just trying to uphold previous resolutions, and not trying to make new law), I entirely disagree with the idea of seperation of powers until you actually specicfy which powers are to be seperated (at a guess my nation has one body that deals with the legislative and executive side of government, and when I say one body, I mean one BODY - me), and generally speaking I find fault with some of your key arguements and have to oppose it on that basis alone.

ok here goes.

1. The independence of the judiciary.

thats the norm in my country anyway.

2. No sanction without breach of the law.

are we talking about local laws, NSUN acts or both?

3. Proportionality of sanctions to crimes.

i wouldn't expect a Kirisuban judge to order a mans hand chopped off because he stole something. thats something our social services can deal with.

4. The separation of powers.

most countries judges are appointed by the local government. whats wrong with that?


5. Equality of all citizens before the law.

again thats something our citizens have.


6. The right of each party to legal proceedings to submit a case.

i've no problem with that

7. Consistent application of legal rules by the judiciary.

thats why we have judges for.


Further to the attainment of the above mentioned ideals, the UN encourages the establishment by its members of a chartered legal body, the members of whom are elected under the rules of that charter, and whose purpose shall be the scrutiny of cases involving UN Resolutions submitted to it by member states.

i could live with that if they are an advisory body only. translating a UN act into a local law can sometimes be hard to achieve.

most of this i can agree with and Kirisubo does most of this already. however is it the right of the NSUN to force democracy onto every member nation? each nation finds a way that works for them and if a leader ignores amd oppresses its citizens for long enough they may well find themselves out off a job.

lets leave law and order to individual nations? they know best.

3. Proportionality of sanctions to crimes.

i wouldn't expect a Kirisuban judge to order a mans hand chopped off because he stole something. thats something our social services can deal with.


(way, way, way ooc)

Do you mean that Social Services will chop his hand off if he stole something?

(sorry - I read it and could not stop laughing)

(way, way, way ooc)

Do you mean that Social Services will chop his hand off if he stole something?

(sorry - I read it and could not stop laughing)

sometimes we all need to laugh in this job otherwise we'd be building up a major tab in the strangers bar. :)

our social services work in partnership with the police and the justice system. they wouldn't cut off hands but they can help a convicted citizen back into the mainstream community. normally most people don't even go to prison.

These are recommendations, and refer to an ideal, not already existing UN resolutions.

I have to disagree about the UN not promoting democracy; UN Delegates are elected, proposals are democratically voted on, and the requirement for submitting a proposal is just 2 endorsements. No-one is forced to be in the UN. All in all, a model of democracy. What the UN doesn't do is force democracy; that's why this is an advisory proposal. On the other hand, lots of nations are interested in democracy, improving their legal systems, and international law.

Quite a few questions there, but here goes...

Natural justice is generally speaking in contradiction to the rule of law. Natural justice says the weak die and the strong survive, and the rule of law tends to say that shouldn't be/isn't the case.

Isn't that 'Natural selection'? Natural justice says that people have certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life. So say a ruler decided that all people with red hair should be killed; the ideal of natural justice says that this ruler is in contravention of natural justice, and his law shouldn't be carried out. If it is, the people have a right to replace him.

4. The separation of powers.

most countries judges are appointed by the local government. whats wrong with that?

Nothing. Separate in repect to their main jobs, so judges do the judging, government runs the country, and the legislature passes legislation. Governments appointing judges doesn't offend the rule.

Equality of all citizens before the law.

Kind of ok, except in nations where convicts are not permitted to vote, cause that is hardly equal.

This doesn't offend the rule. It just means that if the rules say convicts are not permitted to vote, that should apply to all convicts, no exceptions.

7. Consistent application of legal rules by the judiciary.

Erm - sort of okay, except I would like to know exactly what you mean by consistant? (If Person A gets five years for killing someone, does Person B have to get five years as well?)

Consistent as in - say in one case a judge says, "the definition of murder in this nation is to kill another person with full intention to kill them." Then in the next case a judge shouldn't say "the definition of murder is to kill another person intentionally or by reckless accident", because it's a harsher interpretation. It should be one or the other.

Well - I dislike the fact democracy is being pushed on every nation, some of the things you are trying to protect are not actually enshrined in UN law as far as I am aware...

Democracy is being promoted, in line with the UN's own democratic model, but it isn't being forced. The proposal doesn't say these things are already enshrined in UN law, it says they would help with the democratic model. If democracy isn't a nation's thing, it doesn't apply.

Finally, consistent means consistent within that nation. But if the nation asks the UN for clarification on a point of law, and then applies it in its own law, if that point comes up again it should apply the UN law the same way.

These are recommendations, and refer to an ideal, not already existing UN resolutions.


Oh. That takes away some of my complaints at least :}


I have to disagree about the UN not promoting democracy; UN Delegates are elected, proposals are democratically voted on, and the requirement for submitting a proposal is just 2 endorsements. No-one is forced to be in the UN. All in all, a model of democracy. What the UN doesn't do is force democracy; that's why this is an advisory proposal. On the other hand, lots of nations are interested in democracy, improving their legal systems, and international law.


Yeah - but some aren't. They are happy that the government does the judging in cases, they are happy that the judiciary is not entirely independent and their nation works fine that way. If you set about changing that, then it would be chaos and civil war.

And the UN is in no way democratic - not when I (as one nation) hold one vote, and Hyrule (as an endorsed delegate with 20,000 endorsements) holds 20,000 times that power. In what twisted, warped universe does democracy mean one man, twenty thousands votes?


Isn't that 'Natural selection'? Natural justice says that people have certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life. So say a ruler decided that all people with red hair should be killed; the ideal of natural justice says that this ruler is in contravention of natural justice, and his law shouldn't be carried out. If it is, the people have a right to replace him.


They really don't. They have the power to replace him, but not the right.


Nothing. Separate in repect to their main jobs, so judges do the judging, government runs the country, and the legislature passes legislation. Governments appointing judges doesn't offend the rule.


So the fact that I am the person who makes laws and passes them (both the legislative and executive) branches of government is not acceptable? The fact that I, as one person, represent two thirds of the government kind of jumps up and down on seperation of powers, don't you think? And yet no one in my nation thinks it is a bad thing.

Where do you get off telling nations how to run their governments?


This doesn't offend the rule. It just means that if the rules say convicts are not permitted to vote, that should apply to all convicts, no exceptions.


Erm - no. You said "all people should be treated equally before the law" - not "all people should be seperated in to groups and then treated equally within those groups".

Cause by your standard I could pass a law that says "no man may be permitted to have sex with another man". I am treating all men equally by forbidding them to have sex with other men, and - in your own words - "that doesn't offend the rule".

(I know - sexual freedom and gay rights, but discount those for a minute and you will see I am right).

Further more - we already have a resolution that protects the right to be treated equally (UBR) so why do we need another?


Consistent as in - say in one case a judge says, "the definition of murder in this nation is to kill another person with full intention to kill them." Then in the next case a judge shouldn't say "the definition of murder is to kill another person intentionally or by reckless accident", because it's a harsher interpretation. It should be one or the other.


But that doesn't take in to account circumstances, motive, mittigating factors.

My judges are trained to approach each case on the circumstances of the case, not to say "well - Judge Helen set down the precedent that this was murder, and even though you had a good reason, we still have to call it murder so down to hell you go".


Democracy is being promoted, in line with the UN's own democratic model, but it isn't being forced. The proposal doesn't say these things are already enshrined in UN law, it says they would help with the democratic model. If democracy isn't a nation's thing, it doesn't apply.


Again - the UN is not democractic. Further more if you are passing a resolution that anyone can ignore as an when they please, then why the hell are we bothering voting on it?


Finally, consistent means consistent within that nation. But if the nation asks the UN for clarification on a point of law, and then applies it in its own law, if that point comes up again it should apply the UN law the same way.

So I am not being asked to make my laws consistant with the laws of Hyrule? If Judge Toople from Hyrule says "murder is the death of a person", I don't have to go along with that?



The UN reiterates and commends the following ideals of the rule of law and natural justice as an aid to good governance and the integrity of compliance with UN Resolutions;


I disagree that these things are necessary for good government. I also disagree that they are necessary for following previous resolutions. All in all I disagree with your motives, your statement and the idea that just because I chose to model my nation differently than yours that I have a bad government.

I thought a UN Court of Justice would deal with UN resolutions and how to interpet them. Not anything else.

We should stick with a court that interpert UN resolutions and that's it!

Yeah - but some aren't. They are happy that the government does the judging in cases, they are happy that the judiciary is not entirely independent and their nation works fine that way. If you set about changing that, then it would be chaos and civil war.

Once again, these are recommendations. If you check past UN resolutions you'll see plenty of these.

And the UN is in no way democratic - not when I (as one nation) hold one vote, and Hyrule (as an endorsed delegate with 20,000 endorsements) holds 20,000 times that power. In what twisted, warped universe does democracy mean one man, twenty thousands votes?

Were these votes given freely to Hyrule as delegate? Are you allowed to gather as many votes as you can, and can your regional neighbours vote for you freely? Does exactly the same rule apply to you in gathering votes as every other UN member? Yes. Why should you get the same votes as someone who has been democratically elected? This is equivalent to saying "why should that government be in power just because they got 80% of the electorate's vote?"

They really don't. They have the power to replace him, but not the right.

You've got it completely the wrong way round. Who says the people have the power? In fact, the likelyhood is that this ruler can get away with this exactly because he has the power. That doesn't mean he has the moral right to do it.

So the fact that I am the person who makes laws and passes them (both the legislative and executive) branches of government is not acceptable? The fact that I, as one person, represent two thirds of the government kind of jumps up and down on seperation of powers, don't you think? And yet no one in my nation thinks it is a bad thing.

Yes, it does jump up and down on the separation of powers. Luckily no-one in your nation thinks it's a bad thing. Good for them. As mentioned before, if democracy isn't your thing, there's no need to worry.

Where do you get off telling nations how to run their governments?

Are you really asking me to repeat this again? These are recommendations.

Erm - no. You said "all people should be treated equally before the law" - not "all people should be seperated in to groups and then treated equally within those groups".

Hello? It's the law that separates them into groups. What this means is that it uses the same standards when doing the separating.

Cause by your standard I could pass a law that says "no man may be permitted to have sex with another man". I am treating all men equally by forbidding them to have sex with other men, and - in your own words - "that doesn't offend the rule".

Partly right; it doesn't offend the rule that all persons should be treated equally before the law. It does offend certain basic human rights, which the UN has already catered for.

(I know - sexual freedom and gay rights, but discount those for a minute and you will see I am right).

As above these are already catered for.

Further more - we already have a resolution that protects the right to be treated equally (UBR) so why do we need another?

True. It might not make much difference, but it does form part of the 'rule of law', so it's part of a package, if you like.

But that doesn't take in to account circumstances, motive, mittigating factors.

Of course it does. Look, if your nation has a rule mitigating murder in cases of self defence, is this applied consistently, or only when the judge is in the mood? See below...

My judges are trained to approach each case on the circumstances of the case, not to say "well - Judge Helen set down the precedent that this was murder, and even though you had a good reason, we still have to call it murder so down to hell you go".

Good reason? Then that would be one of those mitigating factors. Would your judges apply that "good reason" factor consistently? Of course.

Again - the UN is not democractic. Further more if you are passing a resolution that anyone can ignore as an when they please, then why the hell are we bothering voting on it?

Well arguably even the UBR can be ignored;

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

"Endorse" means support or recommend.

So I am not being asked to make my laws consistant with the laws of Hyrule? If Judge Toople from Hyrule says "murder is the death of a person", I don't have to go along with that?

No.

I disagree that these things are necessary for good government. I also disagree that they are necessary for following previous resolutions. All in all I disagree with your motives, your statement and the idea that just because I chose to model my nation differently than yours that I have a bad government.

Where do you get the idea that I'm criticising "bad government"? This is a list of ideals to aid the democratic model.

I thought a UN Court of Justice would deal with UN resolutions and how to interpet them. Not anything else.

We should stick with a court that interpert UN resolutions and that's it!

That's what it will do. The proposal is just a set of recommendations. At the end it recommends UN members to set up the UN court. This is left pretty open to whoever sets it up, the only requirements being that the court has its own Charter, its members are elected, and it only takes on cases which have been submitted to it by UN members.

I thought a UN Court of Justice would deal with UN resolutions and how to interpet them. Not anything else.

We should stick with a court that interpert UN resolutions and that's it!
The "Commerce Clause" that the US Supreme Court has often used is designed to regulate interstate commence. Since everything you do has some component that was once sold between states ("She kissed me! Illegally!" "Her lip gloss was made in New Jersey, and she kissed you in Montana, so it's a federal case"), the UN Courts can use the same sort of precedent to twist things to look at ANYTHING they want.

It's not like we have a shortage of loopholes here.

It's not like we have a shortage of loopholes here.

We never do have a shortage of those when we're dealing with the NSUN.:( :eek: ;)

Once again, these are recommendations. If you check past UN resolutions you'll see plenty of these.


Most of which I would have voted against, because if the resolution isn't going to actually do anything it is an entire waste of my time.



Were these votes given freely to Hyrule as delegate? Are you allowed to gather as many votes as you can, and can your regional neighbours vote for you freely? Does exactly the same rule apply to you in gathering votes as every other UN member? Yes. Why should you get the same votes as someone who has been democratically elected? This is equivalent to saying "why should that government be in power just because they got 80% of the electorate's vote?"


Imagine you have a nation of 200 voters and two people who want to get in to power. You would imagine that - in a democracy - you would need 101 votes to do it - the majority.

So now imagine what would happen if two of the votes had fifty one votes each, and both voted for the same guy, while 100 people didn't get any votes at all, and 98 people only got one vote.

would you call that democratic? Or would you call it stupid?


You've got it completely the wrong way roung. Who says the people have the power? In fact, the likelyhood is that this ruler can get away with this exactly because he has the power. That doesn't mean he has the moral right to do it.


So now we are off democracy and on to morals?

I was elected to my position, but I rule as absolute ruler of the nation - no one can challange me. And that is the way the law works. But - as has been shown in the past - if people want to get rid of the Queen they have bombs and guns and can do it (Queen Leonara was blown up cause she was evil). They have no right to do it - it's illegal - but they have the power.


Yes, it does jump up and down on the separation of powers. Luckily no-one in your nation thinks it's a bad thing. Good for them. As mentioned before, if democracy isn't your thing, there's no need to worry.


So why is seperation of powers an aid to good government, when clearly it works quite well without it?


Are you really asking me to repeat this again? These are recommendations.


And if I had a resolution that recommended all democracys be scrapped and replaced with dictatorships, would you be saying "they are just recommendations" then?


Hello? It's the law that separates them into groups. What this means is that it uses the same standards when doing the separating.


Ok - I have law that says no black man is permitted to vote. I apply it equally to all black men. Is that an aid to good government?


Partly right; it doesn't offend the rule that all persons should be treated equally before the law. It does offend certain basic human rights, which the UN has already catered for.


You will find that not everyone things the right to have sex with someone you love is a basic human right.

And if you can honestly say that passing a law that is OBVIOUSLY discriminatory but is perfectly fair is the way to good government then you need to rethink your case.


Of course it does. Look, if your nation has a rule mitigating murder in cases of self defence, is this applied consistently, or only when the judge is in the mood? See below...

Good reason? Then that would be one of those mitigating factors. Would your judges apply that "good reason" factor consistently? Of course.


And the fact "good reason" is entirely subjective doesn't seem to worry you at all? I might think that shooting someone dead cause they raped my daughter is a good reason, but I am not sure the next person would agree.


Well arguably even the UBR can be ignored;

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

"Endorse" means support or recommend.


The way it is written would suggest that these are now laws, not recommendations. However it was done a long time ago, so that might not be the case.

But if you are recommending we follow something that is just an extention of something else that it is recommended we follow then it is even more toothless and worthless than I thought.


Where do you get the idea that I'm criticising "bad government"? This is a list of ideals to aid the democratic model.

Which you SPECIFICALLY STATE is "good governence". What other conclusion am I meant to infer than that you think anything that does not follow these rules down to the letter is - in your mind - bad.

Seriously - I would support a UN wide court to which nations could appeal, but this - this is just an unbrideled assult on any governmental type other than democracy, and if it passes the UN will be headed down the road to a dictatorship the likes of which no one has ever seen, and it will do it under the flag of democracy, which just makes it worse.

Imagine you have a nation of 200 voters and two people who want to get in to power. You would imagine that - in a democracy - you would need 101 votes to do it - the majority.

So now imagine what would happen if two of the voters had fifty one votes each, and both voted for the same guy, while 100 people didn't get any votes at all, and 98 people only got one vote.

would you call that democratic? Or would you call it stupid?

In your example, how did the two voters get those 51 votes? This is a completely different example to the one you stated re. Hyrule. Hyrule has those votes by way of a democratic process. The two voters have 51 votes in your example for no reason at all.

So now we are off democracy and on to morals?

Are you saying morality has no place in law?

I was elected to my position, but I rule as absolute ruler of the nation

Nice. One man, one vote, one time.

- no one can challange me. And that is the way the law works. But - as has been shown in the past - if people want to get rid of the Queen they have bombs and guns and can do it (Queen Leonara was blown up cause she was evil). They have no right to do it - it's illegal - but they have the power.

They had the power in that specific case. That doesn't mean they will always have it. But they always have the right.

So why is seperation of powers an aid to good government, when clearly it works quite well without it?

Checks and balances. I'm sure your nation works well. But having the different branches exercise vigilance over each other gives more guarantees. The citizens of your nation are lucky; others are not so.

And if I had a resolution that recommended all democracys be scrapped and replaced with dictatorships, would you be saying "they are just recommendations" then?

Yet again, the recommendation doesn't say scrap dictatorships, or any other kind of government. It recommends an aid to the democratic model of government and justice.

Ok - I have law that says no black man is permitted to vote. I apply it equally to all black men. Is that an aid to good government?

No. That's why the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.

You will find that not everyone things the right to have sex with someone you love is a basic human right.

Sad, but true.

And if you can honestly say that passing a law that is OBVIOUSLY discriminatory but is perfectly fair is the way to good government then you need to rethink your case.

That's why the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.

And the fact "good reason" is entirely subjective doesn't seem to worry you at all? I might think that shooting someone dead cause they raped my daughter is a good reason, but I am not sure the next person would agree.

??? One minute we're talking about the judges finding "good reasons", now it's your personal opinion. How much weight does your personal opinion hold in a real court of law? That's right. The question is whether that "good reason", as part of the law of a nation, is applied consistently, and not according to the weather or the judges mood.

But if you are recommending we follow something that is just an extention of something else that it is recommended we follow then it is even more toothless and worthless than I thought.

Only equality of the law has been recommended. And even though I've said it not once, but twice already, the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.

Which you SPECIFICALLY STATE is "good governence". What other conclusion am I meant to infer than that you think anything that does not follow these rules down to the letter is - in your mind - bad.

These ideals do support and aid good governance. There may be another way, which is also good, but that doesn't mean these are bad. And I'm not saying that anything that doesn't follow these rules is bad, I'm saying it's not the best model of democracy.

Seriously - I would support a UN wide court to which nations could appeal

Even though you've spent most of your time disparaging a "toothless organ".

but this - this is just an unbrideled assult on any governmental type other than democracy, and if it passes the UN will be headed down the road to a dictatorship the likes of which no one has ever seen, and it will do it under the flag of democracy, which just makes it worse.

The UN would be a dictatorship if membership was obligatory, there was no representation, and resolutions were passed by decree.

In your example, how did the two voters get those 51 votes? This is a completely different example to the one you stated re. Hyrule. Hyrule has those votes by way of a democratic process. The two voters have 51 votes in your example for no reason at all.


Maybe they were granted to them by the government - a government that wanted their support.


Are you saying morality has no place in law?


It depends who's morality. Would you want right-wing, fundementalist Christian morality dictating your laws?


Nice. One man, one vote, one time.


Firstly - one WOMAN, one vote. And everyone is quite happy with my nation, and we don't need the UN telling us what we are doing wrong and how to do it better.


They had the power in that specific case. That doesn't mean they will always have it. But they always have the right.


They don't have the right. Just cause five people in a nation of 100 million think I am a bad person doesn't give them the right to overthrow me, regardless of their power.


Checks and balances. I'm sure your nation works well. But having the different branches exercise vigilance over each other gives more guarantees. The citizens of your nation are lucky; others are not so.


And yet you are quite happy to look down your nose at me and write a whole load of recommendations to make my government better. What makes you think you have all the answers? What makes you think you know what the best type of government for each nation is, when you don't live in the nation and don't even have to deal with the nation.


Yet again, the recommendation doesn't say scrap dictatorships, or any other kind of government. It recommends an aid to the democratic model of government and justice.


And the implication is that without your high and mighty prinicpals all nations are damned. Which is clearly bollocks.


No. That's why the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.


Sorry - but if I am permitted to deny the vote to convicts, as long as I do it fairly, why not to black men, as long as I do it fairly? What is the difference?

And if you are going to say people don't chose to be black, then how about I deny it to all Christians, cause chosing your religion is a concious choice? Someone choses to be a convict, someone choses to be a Christian. I say that in my nation both are denied the right to vote, and I apply it evenly and fairly under the law.

How is that wrong by your definition?


That's why the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.


You keep saying that as if it means something. The rule of law is whatever the government says it is, and natural justice is something made up by the disadvantaged to try to stop being disadvantaged.


??? One minute we're talking about the judges finding "good reasons", now it's your personal opinion. How much weight does your personal opinion hold in a real court of law? That's right. The question is whether that "good reason", as part of the law of a nation, is applied consistently, and not according to the weather or the judges mood.


Right. I guess I can kind of get behind this. Given the rest of the proposal is insulting, high-handed and moralistic, even one good part is a miricle.


Only equality of the law has been recommended. And even though I've said it not once, but twice already, the rule of law and concept of natural justice are presented as a package.


And still - it doesn't make any sense.


These ideals do support and aid good governance. There may be another way, which is also good, but that doesn't mean these are bad. And I'm not saying that anything that doesn't follow these rules is bad, I'm saying it's not the best model of democracy.


Our nation considers itself democratic. The people elected me (and given the right circumstances they can elect someone else while I am still in office). And yet we fit only maybe one criteria of your guidelines (the independence of the judiciary - it was established by Queens Amy and Rachel back during the founding).


Even though you've spent most of your time disparaging a "toothless organ".


See - now you are just misleading people and lying to yourself.

A resolution to produce a UN court that upholds the resolutions passed by the UN is one thing. But a high-handed, preachy, moralistic document saying "Hey - this is how to govern well and anyone who doesn't do this, well - we will accept them but hope they come round and form a more perfect union and have government for the people, by the people" is NOT something to support UN resolutions.

They are poles apart and to pretend otherwise is hypocrtical and something that a person should be ashamed of.


The UN would be a dictatorship if membership was obligatory, there was no representation, and resolutions were passed by decree.

With a membership of 30,000 and resolutions being passed by a majority of 1,000 to 2,000 people, I would say it is already passing them by decree.

And no - the UN is not a dictatorship. But if you strip away the right of a nation to have it's own government then you are pretty much enforcing government on a population. Which I would say is the text-book definition of a dictatorship.

Edit

Also - I am done arguing.

I'm getting a little disappointed at this propsal, as it is going beyond what I thought it was. Instead of just interperting UN law, it is now forcing us to adpot governments we feel are wrong.

I believe that I should redraft this propsal and have that be supported. Any ideas for a redraft?

Maybe they were granted to them by the government - a government that wanted their support.

Then it wasn't done democratically. Simple.

It depends who's morality. Would you want right-wing, fundementalist Christian morality dictating your laws?

Well, since the rule of law is a neutral doctrine, and the concept of natural justice is a secular, humanist one, it couldn't possibly be a fundamentalist Christian morality.

Firstly - one WOMAN, one vote. And everyone is quite happy with my nation, and we don't need the UN telling us what we are doing wrong and how to do it better.

Everyone in your nation is happy. But that's only because they happen to have a good ruler who hasn't gone mad. What would happen in a nation with absolute rule where the ruler went mad and decreed laws legalising mass extermination of a section of the population?

They don't have the right. Just cause five people in a nation of 100 million think I am a bad person doesn't give them the right to overthrow me, regardless of their power.

No-one is saying people can overthrow a leader if they think he or she is bad. If that leader is practicing genocide then they do have the right. Or would you prefer that they wait for a law to be passed allowing them to do that?

And yet you are quite happy to look down your nose at me and write a whole load of recommendations to make my government better. What makes you think you have all the answers? What makes you think you know what the best type of government for each nation is, when you don't live in the nation and don't even have to deal with the nation.

This marks a decent into the realms of paranoia. RECOMMENDATIONS.

And the implication is that without your high and mighty prinicpals all nations are damned. Which is clearly bollocks.

RECOMMENDATIONS. AID. DEMOCRACY.

Sorry - but if I am permitted to deny the vote to convicts, as long as I do it fairly, why not to black men, as long as I do it fairly? What is the difference?

This is why the proposal didn't just recommend the rule of law on its own. Sadly, many countries in RL history who practiced the 'rule of law' had all sorts of evil practices (slavery, appalling treatment of women, the disabled, ethnic minorities, etc), and it's partly for that reason that civil rights campaigners began to push the virtues of natural justice. In the proposal natural justice is added to the rule of law because the rule of law by itself isn't enough to stop certain abuses.

And if you are going to say people don't chose to be black, then how about I deny it to all Christians, cause chosing your religion is a concious choice? Someone choses to be a convict, someone choses to be a Christian. I say that in my nation both are denied the right to vote, and I apply it evenly and fairly under the law.

As above, that would be ok according to the rule of law, but against natural justice. That's why you need both.

You keep saying that as if it means something. The rule of law is whatever the government says it is, and natural justice is something made up by the disadvantaged to try to stop being disadvantaged.

No, the rule of law is a doctrine with over a hundred years of precedent.

Right. I guess I can kind of get behind this. Given the rest of the proposal is insulting, high-handed and moralistic, even one good part is a miricle.

Very generous.

Our nation considers itself democratic. The people elected me (and given the right circumstances they can elect someone else while I am still in office). And yet we fit only maybe one criteria of your guidelines (the independence of the judiciary - it was established by Queens Amy and Rachel back during the founding).

I'm sure your nation is a fine place, and it may have a form of democracy. Your people like that form of democracy, which is good. But if everyone who called themselves a democracy was allowed to set their own standards, you could have monarchies calling themselves democracies because they let the people choose between royal princes/ princesses every 100 years.

A resolution to produce a UN court that upholds the resolutions passed by the UN is one thing. But a high-handed, preachy, moralistic document saying "Hey - this is how to govern well and anyone who doesn't do this, well - we will accept them but hope they come round and form a more perfect union and have government for the people, by the people" is NOT something to support UN resolutions.

Every time the UN passes a resolution urging equal rights, fair treatment, representation, etc, it's supporting a form of natural justice. Do you agree with these?

With a membership of 30,000 and resolutions being passed by a majority of 1,000 to 2,000 people, I would say it is already passing them by decree.

Nonsense. A decree is passed by one person alone.

And no - the UN is not a dictatorship. But if you strip away the right of a nation to have it's own government then you are pretty much enforcing government on a population. Which I would say is the text-book definition of a dictatorship.

There is nothing in the resolution which strips away that right. You seem to be offended by the fact that the UN should ever express a preference, and that all systems are equal, whether democracy or dictatorship.

OoC for a moment, I don't know whether these opinions represent a true reflection, but they come pretty damn close to advocating moral or cultural relativism, which is basically the bankrupt idea that any behaviour is acceptable under the cloak of 'tradition' or 'culture'. So in other words, nothing can ever be criticised for fear of criticising another culture. So slavery? Practiced for thousands of years in many cultures, can't criticise it. Female genital mutilation? Cultural. Burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres? Cultural. In fact, almost any depravity can be covered under this excuse so long as it has carried on for long enough and is widespread, which is frankly the most pathetic form of cowardice I can imagine.

Also - I am done arguing.

Yes, you're clearly out of sensible ideas.

I'm getting a little disappointed at this propsal, as it is going beyond what I thought it was. Instead of just interperting UN law, it is now forcing us to adpot governments we feel are wrong.

I believe that I should redraft this propsal and have that be supported. Any ideas for a redraft?

The problem is that if you propose a court with any real power, people scream national sovereignty. If you suggest it have advisory powers only, it's pointless. And as for a recommendation to aid democractic ideals, this manages to be both "toothless" and advocating a "new world order" at the same time!

So good luck.

So I lied. Sue me. Better yet, have the UN sue me in their international court.

My problem with all this is your proposal states this :-



The UN reiterates and commends the following ideals of the rule of law and natural justice as an aid to good governance and the integrity of compliance with UN Resolutions;



So basically you are saying that this proposal says "good government is this".

Not democracy. Not justice. But "good government".

So the implication is if you are not doing this, you are not a good government.

Further more you say you are defending the integrity of compliance with UN resolutions, and yet at least two of your things are not mentioned in UN resolutions. The implication being that they are, and that any nation not doing them is in violation of said resolutions.

If you want to setup a court to enforce actualy UN resolutions, I have no issue with that (although many other nations might). But most of this proposal has fuck all to do with that, instead concentrating on suggesting that government can do better if they only listen to you.

That is why it is entirely unnacceptable. Not because I want to commit genoicde, or ban black people from voting, but because - as dumb as it sounds - I want the right to govern my nation as I see fit and not have a resolution tell me that it thinks I am doing it wrong. And don't give me any crap about "recommendations" because you don't make recommendations unless you think something needs changing. I know - I don't have to listen to them, but the simple fact you are making them implies that you think you know better than me how to make my people happy.

I thought a UN Court of Justice would deal with UN resolutions and how to interpet them. Not anything else.

We should stick with a court that interpert UN resolutions and that's it!

IC:Yes, please. I really don't see why we have to get into this whole "furtherment of democracy" deal. I was ready to back this up when it was only an advisory body, but if its meant to impose democracy upon others it has no support from me (mainly because my country is not a democracy, but also out of the natsov principle).

OOC: I find it kind of weird that its a big no-no to do an ideological ban but not to "further democracy". Isn't that kind of a bias? But before I get a shower of comments about it I'll clarify this is just an aside, I know we can't deal with game mechanics.

The problem is that if you propose a court with any real power, people scream national sovereignty. If you suggest it have advisory powers only, it's pointless.

Any rouge nation can decide not to listen to anything. It depends on the other nations who are not as rouge.

Besides, there will always be other nations who will enforce the Court's rulings. This will give it power.

I'm going to draft a court with advisory powers. It is the only true court that will be acceptable and will not force upon other nations a 'better' form of government.

My problem with all this is your proposal states this :-

The UN reiterates and commends the following ideals of the rule of law and natural justice as an aid to good governance and the integrity of compliance with UN Resolutions;

So basically you are saying that this proposal says "good government is this".

Not democracy. Not justice. But "good government".

So the implication is if you are not doing this, you are not a good government.

It says..."as an aid to good governance". It really doesn't imply that if you're not doing this, you aren't a good government. For example, a wooly hat is an aid to keeping warm. But so is a coat. Or a fire. Stating one doesn't make the others untrue. On the other hand you don't have to state them all for one to be true. To make it relevant to our case, we could say that, as per your nation, having a just and kind ruler is an aid to good governance. It's just that not all nations can guarantee that. Obviously the democratic model also has its faults. That's why it requires checks and balances, such as separation of powers, etc. Where are the checks and balances under absolute rule in a nation which doesn't have a just ruler?

Further more you say you are defending the integrity of compliance with UN resolutions, and yet at least two of your things are not mentioned in UN resolutions. The implication being that they are, and that any nation not doing them is in violation of said resolutions.

This is about the way UN resolutions are interpreted. If they're interpreted consistently, they'll be fairer.

If you want to setup a court to enforce actualy UN resolutions, I have no issue with that (although many other nations might).

This seems a bit contradictory to what you say later. If a UN court was enforcing its resolutions, it would be telling you how to run your nation, at least that part of it that interprets UN resolutions. Anyway, don't worry, it'll never happen. The general consensus is that it's toothless and dictatorial.

But most of this proposal has fuck all to do with that, instead concentrating on suggesting that government can do better if they only listen to you.

It doesn't say "only", it says "as an aid", which means one of many, but you have chosen to read it as excluding anything else. So in fact it isn't me dictating; I'm offering one suggestion for good governance. It's you, by saying that this one suggestion is unacceptable.

Any rouge nation can decide not to listen to anything. It depends on the other nations who are not as rouge.

Besides, there will always be other nations who will enforce the Court's rulings. This will give it power.

I'm going to draft a court with advisory powers. It is the only true court that will be acceptable and will not force upon other nations a 'better' form of government.
OOC:Please don't take this as an insult, but I though it was a typo at fisrt, now I see you meant to write it like that. Rogue=rebel. Rouge=red. Again, please don't think I'm making fun of you, I just thought I should call that.

This is a first draft of a counter-propsal, for a UN court, against UN ruling over our nation.


APPLUADING the NSUN for its resolutions.

NOTING that text inside of resolutions are quite often vauge and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means.

ESTABLISHES a "NSUN Court" with the stated purpose shall be the scrutiny of cases involving NSUN Resolutions submitted to it by member states and interpeting the NSUN resolutions, to resolve disputes on what a resolution means.

The NSUN Court will be a chartered, international body, in which the members of whom are elected under the rules of that charter.

STRESSING that the descisons of the NSUN Court is advisory, but

STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the desicions of the NSUN Court.

All I can come up with. Short, sweet, and to the point. Anybody wants to add more stuff?

Also, I hope its legal that people can roleplay as the gnomes who will staff this...

EDIT: Edited with suggestions from Kirsbuo

most of the time short and sweet does the trick.

NOTING that text inside of resolutions are quite often vague and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means.

i would amend the above sentence as bolded. i've a repeal in the works which is based on the same argument.

also i would substitute UN with NSUN so no RL references come into this however slight.

regarding other stuff i can't think of anything at the moment.

Can you or gatesville sponser this resolution and put it on the floor, as a test vote? I hope this idea get accepted.

Can you or gatesville sponser this resolution and put it on the floor, as a test vote? I hope this idea get accepted.
I am a delegate and would have no problem in sponsoring this, if you have no problem with that. Also look forward to roleplaying the Court.

STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the desicions of the NSUN Court.

What!!! Who does the UN think it is, telling my courts what to do?!!? And if it's only advisory, what's the point anyway??!!

Only joking:)

After "NOTING that text inside of resolutions..." how about;

WISHING to assist in the settlement of, and compliance with, UN resolutions,

-or-

WISHING to assist in diputes of an international character between UN members,

I am a delegate and would have no problem in sponsoring this, if you have no problem with that. Also look forward to roleplaying the Court.

No problem at all. I hope you sponoser my other resolution as well.

I also accept UFN's suggestion as well. Let keep old feuds behind and get this court established.

New resolution with UFN's added suggestion:

APPLUADING the NSUN for its resolutions.

NOTING that text inside of resolutions are quite often vauge and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means.

WISHING to assist in diputes of an international character between UN members on the meaning of resolutions.

ESTABLISHES a "NSUN Court" with the stated purpose shall be the scrutiny of cases involving NSUN Resolutions submitted to it by member states and interpeting the NSUN resolutions, to resolve disputes on what a resolution means.

The NSUN Court will be a chartered, international body, in which the members of whom are elected under the rules of that charter.

STRESSING that the descisons of the NSUN Court is advisory, but

STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the desicions of the NSUN Court.

the two problems here that i see, from what i have read is this:
1) UN court
you establish a UN court that can hand out sentencing, you go towards a singular nation, not a body of nations. the NS group wouldnt be happy about that one....
2) it is 'advisory'
you say that it is advisory, it practicly means toothless tiger. it wouldnt be worth the paper it is written on, let alone the cost in implamenting it (yes, there would be a cost, taken from every nation when it is passed, as per game mechanics)

unfortunatly, there is no middle ground here. either it hands out sentences, which most people would oppose to, or it advises on solutions, which most would ignore. i hate to say this, but it has been tried before, and it thus far has not succeeded.

This is a first draft of a counter-propsal, for a UN court, against UN ruling over our nation.



All I can come up with. Short, sweet, and to the point. Anybody wants to add more stuff?

Also, I hope its legal that people can roleplay as the gnomes who will staff this...

EDIT: Edited with suggestions from Kirsbuo

I admit it - I like this draft and would be happy to serve on such a court (or - rather - I would be happy to send a lawyer to serve on such a court, since I am not really permitted to serve in any judicial fashion under the laws of my land and what kind of Queen would I be if I ignored those rules?)

But my sister is always ready to serve - and she is a good lawyer.

2) it is 'advisory'
you say that it is advisory, it practicly means toothless tiger. it wouldnt be worth the paper it is written on, let alone the cost in implamenting it (yes, there would be a cost, taken from every nation when it is passed, as per game mechanics)

unfortunatly, there is no middle ground here. either it hands out sentences, which most people would oppose to, or it advises on solutions, which most would ignore. i hate to say this, but it has been tried before, and it thus far has not succeeded.

I think it's mainly meant for RP. The only problem with what you say is that it effectively means that UN members can interpret most resolutions any way they want. So the entire UN is pretty 'toothless'.

I think it's mainly meant for RP. The only problem with what you say is that it effectively means that UN members can interpret most resolutions any way they want. So the entire UN is pretty 'toothless'.
thats the idea of it, really. while there are some hard and fast rules, most of the un resolutions are open for interpretation based on the principle of not interfering too much with the desicion making process of the member nations. otherwise it will become a singular nation, and members would drop out on the basis that it had lost its purpose

thats the idea of it, really. while there are some hard and fast rules, most of the un resolutions are open for interpretation based on the principle of not interfering too much with the desicion making process of the member nations. otherwise it will become a singular nation, and members would drop out on the basis that it had lost its purpose

Trouble is, a nation can get round stuff most people would see as fundamental. For instance...

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6
End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous
Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

[1]- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
[2]- The right to own possessions.
[3]- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
[4]- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
[5]- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

What if you really wanted to keep slavery? Your courts might interpret something like this...

1. Fine. But anyone else can force them back to work.
2. No problem. They have to pay a 200% tax on the value of all possessions.
3. Their country? OK. But in ours, they’re under house arrest.
4. They don’t have an employer, they have an owner.
5. Hmm. Alright, but you can give them away for free.

See? Still got slavery, although it’s probably called something else now, like ‘indefinite permission to serve’. Which brings us to your last point. What's the UN's purpose?

that is resolution #6, way before the UBR was introduced, which would overlap into this. also, some nations actually like loopholes like you pointed out (except point four, because they would have to be deemed employer if they are technically not slaves, otherwise it would contraveen that point). the UN is more of a guidelines body, with member-nations enforcing the resolutions when they are grossly violated.

See? Still got slavery, although it’s probably called something else now, like ‘indefinite permission to serve’. Which brings us to your last point. What's the UN's purpose?
The purpose would be to make it harder to have those things, to make them have to find loopholes.

except point four, because they would have to be deemed employer if they are technically not slaves, otherwise it would contraveen that point
Not really. What about my country? We are feudalists. That means the Lords have complete rule over their vassals. They are not their owners. Or their employers. They are their protectors. That means also protecting thm from their own ignorance.

I admit it - I like this draft and would be happy to serve on such a court (or - rather - I would be happy to send a lawyer to serve on such a court, since I am not really permitted to serve in any judicial fashion under the laws of my land and what kind of Queen would I be if I ignored those rules?)

But my sister is always ready to serve - and she is a good lawyer.

Is she a gnome? If so, she can join the court. If not, does she want to turn into a gnome?

Really, I believe only gnomes can join the court, due to the rules of the all-mighty mods. Unless I find a way around it, your sister going to need to go through a species change operation to be a gnome.

Sorry, but I don't want to upset the mods and have them say: "Violating game mechaincs!"

And sorry if it sounds incredibly stupid. It is. Prehaps the mods can define gnome as basically any body created just to serve on the committe. If so, then she is a gnome, and can join. No species change operation needed.

Is she a gnome? If so, she can join the court. If not, does she want to turn into a gnome?

Really, I believe only gnomes can join the court, due to the rules of the all-mighty mods. Unless I find a way around it, your sister going to need to go through a species change operation to be a gnome.

Sorry, but I don't want to upset the mods and have them say: "Violating game mechaincs!"

And sorry if it sounds incredibly stupid. It is. Prehaps the mods can define gnome as basically any body created just to serve on the committe. If so, then she is a gnome, and can join. No species change operation needed.

People have historically RPed committees. Not everyone recognises that...but it's fun. TPP was to be staffed by gnomes: didn't stop people (trying to) RP sitting on it.

People have historically RPed committees. Not everyone recognises that...but it's fun. TPP was to be staffed by gnomes: didn't stop people (trying to) RP sitting on it.

Then, Pallatium's Queen's Sister can serve. Even if she's not a gnome.

Final, final draft, which I will be submitting on behalf of SLI Sector:

International Court of Arbitration
APPLAUDING the NSUN for its resolutions,

NOTING that text of some resolutions can be vague and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means,

WISHING to assist in disputes of an international character between NSUN members on the meaning of resolutions:

1. ESTABLISHES an "International Court of Justice" (ICA) with the stated purpose of scrutiny of cases involving NSUN resolutions submitted to it by member states and interpreting the NSUN resolutions, to resolve disputes on what a resolution means;

2. STRESSES that the decisions of the ICA will be advisory;

3. STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the decisions of the ICA.

Submitted on behalf of SLI Sector.

also i would substitute UN with NSUN so no RL references come into this however slight.
I wouldn't worry about this due to the fact that if you say UN in a proposal it's assumed that you're referring to the NationStates UN.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wouldn't worry about this due to the fact that if you say UN in a proposal it's assumed that you're referring to the NationStates UN.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I've done it anyway, just for the sake of consistency.

I've done it anyway, just for the sake of consistency.
I see that but, seeing as how my resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) contains the term "UN" eight times and no one claimed it was a RL reference, I doubt that using it would be a problem.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I see that but, seeing as how my resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) contains the term "UN" eight times and no one claimed it was a RL reference, I doubt that using it would be a problem.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No, no, I wasn't disagreeing with your point. It's just the proposal made a reference to NSUN and to UN, and it seemed sensible to make it consistent throughout. No, after all, we have several proposals with UN in their name.

that is resolution #6, way before the UBR was introduced, which would overlap into this. also, some nations actually like loopholes like you pointed out (except point four, because they would have to be deemed employer if they are technically not slaves, otherwise it would contraveen that point). the UN is more of a guidelines body, with member-nations enforcing the resolutions when they are grossly violated.

The UBR doesn't prohibit slavery. You could keep slaves and still not offend the UBR. Re. point four, you could say they were 'guardians'. See? Gross violation, but since the UN can't enforce, no effect.

Then, Pallatium's Queen's Sister can serve. Even if she's not a gnome.

That will make her very happy :}

(Also, she isn't a gnome, but personally, I think some of her ex-girlfriends fit that description, but don't tell her I told you that :})

Final, final draft, which I will be submitting on behalf of SLI Sector:

International Court of Arbitration
APPLAUDING the NSUN for its resolutions,

NOTING that text of some resolutions can be vague and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means,

WISHING to assist in disputes of an international character between NSUN members on the meaning of resolutions:

1. ESTABLISHES an "International Court of Justice" (ICA) with the stated purpose of scrutiny of cases involving NSUN resolutions submitted to it by member states and interpreting the NSUN resolutions, to resolve disputes on what a resolution means;

2. STRESSES that the decisions of the ICA will be advisory;

3. STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the decisions of the ICA.

Submitted on behalf of SLI Sector.

Best of luck with this proposal. If it passes, The Community of Unstable Former Nuns will amend its 'Justice Bill' to make the UN Court's interpretations of UN resolutions part of the domestic law. This will remain the case so long as the nation chooses to retain UN membership. We consider this to be in keeping with the ideals of national sovereignty and the rules of law and natural justice, which the UN promotes.

The UBR doesn't prohibit slavery. You could keep slaves and still not offend the UBR. Re. point four, you could say they were 'guardians'. See? Gross violation, but since the UN can't enforce, no effect.
again, thats down to interpretation :)

Bump! Please remember to support the propsal as soon as it get introduced on the floor!

Bump! Please remember to support the propsal as soon as it get introduced on the floor!
Send me a telegram when it is proposed, if you can. Habardia would also very happily send an experienced judge to serve on the Court.

OOC: I wanna RP this...

OOC: So do I. This is why we must make sure this propsal passes!

OOC: So do I. This is why we must make sure this propsal passes!
OOC Well is it submitted yet?

We hope this matter can be settled in the near future, as our nation has one or two test cases we would like to put forward.

Our highest court, the Seventh Chamber [Proclamations Temporal], has reserved judgement and ordered interim measures in the case of RapidCo. v. The NationState, which turns on the interpretation of the SPCC Regulation Act. RapidCo seek a literal interpretation, saying the Resolution is clearly meant as a statement of endorsement. The fact that the earlier Bill (#11 Ban Single-Hulled Tankers) is worded in the negative means that the use of the positive wording ("endorse") in SPCC means the author expressly meant the SPCC to be less binding.

The NationState (Uns. Form. Nuns), say that as the SPCC is meant as an exension to Res. #11, it is dependent on #11 for its meaning, and must be read in light of the primary act. #11 seeks to prevent damage from oil spills, which can only be secured by a ban on all single-hulls, whether pipes or tankers.

The problem is that the mods are deciding if it is legal...and I have doubts that they will rule it illegal. Though, I hope not.