NationStates Jolt Archive

I've proposed to Establish a UN Security Council.

It is to act as arbitrator in regional conflicts. That is, not international conflicts.

The scope of the council, and how it works in tandem with existing UN Resolutions are detailed in the proposal.

Please have a look.

Thanks,

Pel

Establish Security Council

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

Category: International Security

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Pel

Description: WHILST RECOGNIZING: UN Resolution #49 defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention; and UN Resolutions # 83 & #110provide detailed protocol for member states security;

ASSERTING that many nations are unable to defend themselves (as defined in Resolution #110);

ACKNOWLEDGING that conflicts arise within regions and that there is no body vested with the power to arbitrate or intervene when necessary, or requested;

ASSERTING that most members want to prevent and resolve conflicts and help build a culture of peace in the world;

CONSIDERING that delegates become de facto arbitrators in ‘intra-regional’ conflicts;

ASSERTING that these duties fall beyond the scope of the delegate’s elected mandate;

FURTHER ASSERTING that conflicts may arise in which the delegate are themselves involved or otherwise prevented (i.e. through conflict of interest) from acting impartially or with disinterest;

THUS ARGUES to establish The Security Council to arbitrate in cases of protracted or extreme conflict, and in keeping with the spirit of UN Resolutions #49, #83 & #110, act as an ultimate authority.

Principles & Limitations

Article 1
§Except in cases of genocide (see UN Resolution #83) which necessitate the creation of The Pretenama Panel (TPP), a UN security Council decision shall be rendered on any conflicts arising within regions when:
i) outside intervention formally requested by one, or more parties to the dispute
ii) the situation is perceived by the Council as dangerous to nations outside the actual conflict.
iii) all other diplomatic/legal avenues have been exhausted, including a thorough examination of previous UN Resolutions

Article 2
§Member sovereignty is affirmed, in keeping with UN Resolution #49. The Security Council will not intervene except in cases defined in Article 1 (i~iii).

Article 3
§Conflicts where intervention is appropriate are defined as: war, trade embargo, religious jihad or crusade, terrorism.
i) war shall be defined as: a contest between nations or states, carried on by force
ii) terrorism shall be defined as: All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public

Article 4
§Instances requiring Humanitarian Intervention are previously covered by UN Resolution #92, and shall be seen as outside the purview of the Security Council.

Article 5
§Conflicts between regions are not covered by this Council, or resolution, in recognition of pre-existing global law governing invasions and defense.

Article 6
§The council shall be composed of twenty five members, ten of whom are permanent, and fifteen of which are elected by the General Assembly every two years. The Council shall reach decisions by vote and decisions will be decided by the majority. Military action is the sole exception requiring unanimous approval.

Article 7
§Security Council interventions include: conflict arbitration; deployment of peace keepers; embargoes (not including medical supplies); recognition of UN status; military action.

Article 8
§In the case of non-UN member states involved in the conflict, the Security Council may, if requested,act as arbitrator and will allow for observers from non-UN states to ensure impartiality. However, any other intervention is strictly forbidden to non-UN member nations except in cases of approved military action.

6 and 7 look illegal as hell. Metagaming + UN army. Are you applying to be a "permanent member"???

It's not just 6 and 7 which are illegal - it's pretty much the whole thing.

Sorry Pel, it's pretty obvious you have put some work into this, but it's going to crash and burn.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

Perhaps all these efforts to create a security council or military authorisational force are looking at this the wrong way.

How about creating a resolution that gives the U.N. the authority to authorise nations or alliances to implement the desires of the U.N., should they be willing. Thus, it would not be a U.N. army, but an independant force acting upon the stated desires of the U.N.

Could this work?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Perhaps all these efforts to create a security council or military authorisational force are looking at this the wrong way.

How about creating a resolution that gives the U.N. the authority to authorise nations or alliances to implement the desires of the U.N., should they be willing. Thus, it would not be a U.N. army, but an independant force acting upon the stated desires of the U.N.

Could this work?
Our engineers were working on constructing an enormous neon sign, of mile-high, flashing red letters. Although there were only two - N and O - they just sucked up too much electricity. So plain old text will have to suffice.

NO

The UN is an organization of sovereign nations, who have the right to go to war with one another, to form alliances with non-UN nations, and to do both or neither of the above. Any attempt to form a UN army, a UN military force, a security council, or really anything, would be waaay over the line for us. (Anyone mentioning SLI Sector should remember I just need another endorsement, and he has now gone. Thankfully.) There is either an independent force - plenty of which already exist - or there is a UN army - which is illegal. Any kind of 'compromise' would meet the sternest possible resistance from Gruenberg, who has no desire to see wars waged in its name, for causes which it has no interest in and by forces which it has no say over.

for once I can agree with the honoured Ambassador from Gruenburg.

you give the UN an army or a security council and you make them a world government that only leaves sovereign nations with only the right to run hospitals and empty trash cans.

you give the UN an army or a security council and you make them a world government that only leaves sovereign nations with only the right to run hospitals and empty trash cans.

(You obviously missed Required Basic Healthcare and Mandatory Recycling.)

Sheknu, i didn't miss those. I was just making a point.

do we realy want to reduce UN nations down to local councils who can't blow their nose without UN approval?

(OOC: running hospitals and emptying bins is all most most council in NI can do anyway :) )

do we realy want to reduce UN nations down to local councils who can't blow their nose without UN approval?

There are two things which the UN has no control over, and will always remain the soverign right of nations to decide.

A) if and when to join the UN
B) if and when to leave the UN

Everything else is fair game, if the membership of the UN is dumb enough to let the UN rule it.

Edit: Excluding that which is illegal under game mechanics, of course.

Anyway, I've often thought a resolution could be created which would allow for the introduction of peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN to be formed on a strictly ad-hoc basis as neccessary - provide a framework for peacekeepers and their role, but not enforce compulsory participation (encourgaing regional partners to get involved, but not making it compulsory)
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

This Proposal is illegal on several counts.

Description: WHILST RECOGNIZING: UN Resolution #49 defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention; and UN Resolutions # 83 & #110provide detailed protocol for member states security;Borderline HoC.

§Except in cases of genocide (see UN Resolution #83) which necessitate the creation of The Pretenama Panel (TPP), a UN security Council decision shall be rendered on any conflicts arising within regions when:HoC violation.

i) outside intervention formally requested by one, or more parties to the dispute
ii) the situation is perceived by the Council as dangerous to nations outside the actual conflict.
iii) all other diplomatic/legal avenues have been exhausted, including a thorough examination of previous UN ResolutionsRuns dangerously close to involving the UN in non-UN nations.

§Instances requiring Humanitarian Intervention are previously covered by UN Resolution #92, and shall be seen as outside the purview of the Security Council.HoC violation.

§The council shall be composed of twenty five members, ten of whom are permanent, and fifteen of which are elected by the General Assembly every two years.Metagaming.

The Council shall reach decisions by vote and decisions will be decided by the majority. Military action is the sole exception requiring unanimous approval.Metagaming and Army violation.

§Security Council interventions include: conflict arbitration; deployment of peace keepers; embargoes (not including medical supplies); recognition of UN status; military action.Army creation violation.

§In the case of non-UN member states involved in the conflict, the Security Council may, if requested,act as arbitrator and will allow for observers from non-UN states to ensure impartiality. However, any other intervention is strictly forbidden to non-UN member nations except in cases of approved military action.UN cannot interfere with non-UN nations. This is also an army violation.

for once I can agree with the honoured Ambassador from Gruenburg.

you give the UN an army or a security council and you make them a world government that only leaves sovereign nations with only the right to run hospitals and empty trash cans.

From an ideological point of view, this wouldn't be particularly objectionable for us.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

From an ideological point of view, this wouldn't be particularly objectionable for us.

Yes, but that's because you hate your citizens. Even the most vocal of international federalists would not suggest your line of action: there are many areas where it is fundamentally inappropriate for the UN to legislate. The biggy, I'd say, is education. If education is not rooted in the context of its culture and society, then it will fail. Literacy and numeracy initiatives are fine; anything much more substantial runs the risk of enforcing one set of moral values on the UN as a whole. That is not a good thing.

Also, I randomly came up with this:

I'd say we (the NSO) are effectively a bunch of straight guys, in a town full of gay bars. We don't yet have enough money to build our own straight bar, but we do want to go out and have a decent time. Occasionally, we get lucky (did you check out the rack on Unsa?) but for the most time, pickings are pretty frugal. That's not going to stop us from trying.

This has been a production of Gruenberg's Filthy Mind Inc.

OOC:

I wasn't being 100% serious, I do have some limits on my federalist beliefs.

OOC:

I wasn't being 100% serious, I do have some limits on my federalist beliefs.

I was being serious, and I have few limits on my sovereigntist beliefs.

I was being serious, and I have few limits on my sovereigntist beliefs.

Have you got a precise philosophy of dilineation of "areas of influence", where the U.N. can or cannot legislate.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Establish Security Council

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

Category: International Security

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Pel

Meh, probably correct, but I'd always be worried if your proposal has to use a strength of strong

Description: WHILST RECOGNIZING: UN Resolution #49 defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention; and UN Resolutions # 83 & #110provide detailed protocol for member states security;

How does 110 provide protocol for member state's security? 83 makes even less sense. If any of the resolutions do, it would be 109 but it's BARELY any better than 110. Screw HoC, I'd say this is just plain false to begin with.

ASSERTING that many nations are unable to defend themselves (as defined in Resolution #110);

Um....again a failure to understand 110. Regardless, that's what allies are for.

ACKNOWLEDGING that conflicts arise within regions and that there is no body vested with the power to arbitrate or intervene when necessary, or requested;

Because a third party can't be chosen by the two sides to assist in arbitrating.

ASSERTING that most members want to prevent and resolve conflicts and help build a culture of peace in the world;

I suppose one could claim that the majority do, but the majority of non-isolationists would claim otherwise

CONSIDERING that delegates become de facto arbitrators in ‘intra-regional’ conflicts;

Or Founders

ASSERTING that these duties fall beyond the scope of the delegate’s elected mandate;

Because he is, of course, unable to talk to friends or conduct diplomacy himself

FURTHER ASSERTING that conflicts may arise in which the delegate are themselves involved or otherwise prevented (i.e. through conflict of interest) from acting impartially or with disinterest;

Especially when the opposing statement is "surrender all the land of all nations in your region or you will all be nuked to the stone age"

THUS ARGUES to establish The Security Council to arbitrate in cases of protracted or extreme conflict, and in keeping with the spirit of UN Resolutions #49, #83 & #110, act as an ultimate authority.

Definite HoC violation.

Principles & Limitations

Article 1
§Except in cases of genocide (see UN Resolution #83) which necessitate the creation of The Pretenama Panel (TPP), a UN security Council decision shall be rendered on any conflicts arising within regions when:

Definate HoC violation.

i) outside intervention formally requested by one, or more parties to the dispute
ii) the situation is perceived by the Council as dangerous to nations outside the actual conflict.
iii) all other diplomatic/legal avenues have been exhausted, including a thorough examination of previous UN Resolutions

A nuclear blast will always be dangerous to nations outside the actual conflict, so I think that means you're dealing with a large percentage of wars - which is probably on the order of thousands at any given point and time. Nicely overworked council.

Article 2
§Member sovereignty is affirmed, in keeping with UN Resolution #49. The Security Council will not intervene except in cases defined in Article 1 (i~iii).

Again, HoC.

Article 3
§Conflicts where intervention is appropriate are defined as: war, trade embargo, religious jihad or crusade, terrorism.

Because jihad and crusades are the only forms of religious war, and terrorist strikes are able to be stopped by a security council

i) war shall be defined as: a contest between nations or states, carried on by force
ii) terrorism shall be defined as: All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public

A lot of state-sponsored terrorism is legal because the state said "go ahead and do it", just it wasn't the state that was bombed

Article 4
§Instances requiring Humanitarian Intervention are previously covered by UN Resolution #92, and shall be seen as outside the purview of the Security Council.

*bangs head on desk real hard*

That's 4 resolutions for HoC violations

Article 5
§Conflicts between regions are not covered by this Council, or resolution, in recognition of pre-existing global law governing invasions and defense.

We have global law governing invasions and defense - aside from weapons restrictions?

Article 6
§The council shall be composed of twenty five members, ten of whom are permanent, and fifteen of which are elected by the General Assembly every two years. The Council shall reach decisions by vote and decisions will be decided by the majority. Military action is the sole exception requiring unanimous approval.

Let's see - elections by General Assembly: Metagaming (illegal)
Add on that you seem to be trying to get real people on the council - again, metagaming. Perhaps even gameplay.
And why should anyone get a permanent seat? Unless the 10 members are the top 10 moderators. Well, then, military action will NEVER happen.

Article 7
§Security Council interventions include: conflict arbitration; deployment of peace keepers; embargoes (not including medical supplies); recognition of UN status; military action.

We have peace keepers (actually, I'd like to take a shot at making a resolution for that in the near future, see if it is possible to make a legal one).
"Recognition of UN status" - um.....that's gameplay and rent-a-modding :P
Military action from whom?

Article 8
§In the case of non-UN member states involved in the conflict, the Security Council may, if requested,act as arbitrator and will allow for observers from non-UN states to ensure impartiality. However, any other intervention is strictly forbidden to non-UN member nations except in cases of approved military action.

Um....whatever

I believe it should be set up, without permanent members, but rather stay as long as you want. It should be more of a debate arena about security, and would probably end up without what we need. Nice try.

Yeeowch!

I concede defeat.

I've read the rules and this proposal is illegal. :eek:

Don't give up entirely on the idea Pel, it has some merit.

But it's good you have read the rules, you know better now, and hopefully can come back with some better proposals. <jedi>I sense much potential within you, my young apprentice.</jedi>
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

I think this is a great idea for international security. However, we will need more proposals to build our militaries up first.

Although I would like the idea of a Security Council, I would trust my own, technologically advanced miltary, over those of other nations.

<jedi>I sense much potential within you, my young apprentice.</jedi>

Beware the darkside. If you choose the quick and easy path it will claim you forever :p

I just think, a UN army is banned for a reason. Proposals like this are dubious for a reason.

It is a BAD idea.

We are NOT a sovereign body. We are not even a harmonious body. We have a resolution on the books which passed by like 150 votes. There are oceans of aspects of social law we haven't legislated. Two cultures within the UN can be utterly different, share entirely different organizations, have no moral base in common, and still be members of the UN. We have NO authority over non-UN nations, and when we try to legislate outside our jurisdiction - The Law of the Sea - we fuck it up. Badly. Furthermore, what are we even so scared of? The 'anti-UN' regions voted FOR the repeal of Promotion of Solar Panels, and AGAINST the Biological Weapons Ban. We're not being faced off by Einstein here.

It is fundamentally - and apologies to the OP - stupid, to think that the UN is able to wield any form of military power as a whole, let alone that it should be allowed to. We come together to improve the world, not to have our people die for causes we may disagree with, just because of one fucking badge. This is NOT what UN membership is about, and frankly any discussion of a UN army, a UN security council, or really any UN military influence is going to meet with extreme disdain from Gruenberg.

well what about a UN peace force? A small group of UN citizens dedicated to maintaining peace in regional conflicts?