NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize that the United Nations Security Act is fairly popular, but I think that some of it needs to be changed, so I have submitted a repeal with the intent of writing a replacement:

Repeal "United Nations Security Act"

Description: UN Resolution #110: United Nations Security Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: AFFIRMING that the United Nations Security Act (UNSA) was implemented in good faith

RECALLING that the resolution declares the right to "construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack"

DEEPLY TROUBLED that the resolution does not limit the use of those weapons for defense

HYPOTHESIZING a situation where a nation build weapons "necessary for defense" but then using them to lead an attack against a rival nation

REPEALS the United Nations Security Act


Although I've already submitted it, chances are low that it will get to quorum this time around, so suggestions for improvements are welcome.

Thanks, and if you support this, it would be nice if you could approve it. ;)

for those who cant be stuffed..... here is the resolution in question
United Nations Security Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category : International Security
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : Texan Hotrodders

Description : The NationStates United Nations,

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.

Votes For : 9,667

Votes Against : 6,886

Implemented : Fri Jul 8 2005


i am unsure about your argument now... there are other resolutions limiting or eliminating types of weaponary. could you explain your position further.

Not going to fly - there's absolutely no reason to repeal as the "use" part could be a bandaid on the original resolution without being flagged as an ammendment.

This resolution was written as a national soveringty document and is designed to prevent any future legislation by UN members limiting or restricting a nations ability to build and use any weapons it feels are necessary to national defence. Thats its sole purpose. The lack of limits/restrictions isn't an oversight or mistake.

It does however have a huge loophole which makes it practically worthless. If any nation wants to ban a weapon, all they have to do is put a line such as...

Believing *pickaweapon* is not necessary for national defence

then this resolution is effectivly bypassed (from what I understand).

Nations do have a right to attack other nations if they feel its necessary. In some cases a first strike could well save lives by making a possible long drawn out war a short sharp one. I don't like the thought of UN nations having their hands tied by the UN to the effect we are sitting ducks just waiting for another nation to attack us.

I do support a repeal of this resolution but only to close that loophole and make this resolution do what its supposed to. We have bio weapons and landmines banned under other resolutions (nukes are legal) and that covers the worst ones in my opinion. There really isn't a need to ban any others.

Not going to fly - there's absolutely no reason to repeal as the "use" part could be a bandaid on the original resolution without being flagged as an ammendment.
I don't really understand that -- the resolution does what it says it does, not what someone just "puts on" mentally. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't really understand that -- the resolution does what it says it does, not what someone just "puts on" mentally. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean you can send another resolution through that makes it so people can only use weapons for defense. Ownership was the only thing covered by UNSA, not use. You don't need to repeal the UNSA to meet your objectives.

I mean you can send another resolution through that makes it so people can only use weapons for defense. Ownership was the only thing covered by UNSA, not use. You don't need to repeal the UNSA to meet your objectives.

I think it does cover use of "any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation" under the words I've bolded below..

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.