Waterana
29-12-2005, 11:35
After reading a mods post in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460493), I have a question.
This is the phrase that explicitly bans any 'optional compliance' resolutions [either 'nations may choose to comply with this resolution or not,' or 'UN nations are sovereign and may choose whether or not to comply with any and all UN resolutions']. It's also illegal to make any statements that the UN cannot legislate on a given subject [first bolded section doesn't have 'as long as your vision isn't anything to do with...']. Carried further a repeal only consisting of 'it violates national sovereignty' is illegal, simply because it's not a concept the NSUN is in any way bound to respect to begin with.
I think we're crossing terms here: I'm more used to 'national sovereignty' with regards to UN proposals as the illegal forms of national sovereignty proposal, namely optional compliance and 'X is no longer any of the UN's business.'
(I only quoted the relevent part of this post)
I'm in the process of writing a proposal now that may be illegal under what you have said here, but I'm not sure. Nations do have the option of not paticipating in the scheme it revolves around unless they want to, and I don't know if that would be seen as optional compliance with the proposal or not.
After reading what you have said here, I'm wondering if you'd please take a look at this and tell me if this type of writing is ok, or not. If not, I will need to change it. The strength will be mild.
Aged/Disabled Care Accreditation Program
Noting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home and/or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens who are in need of assistance.
In addition, noting many richer nations would be willing to donate money to an international aid fund for the purpose of assisting in providing such care but are reluctant due to the possibility of corruption and the money not being spent for the purpose it was originally given.
Encourages all UN member nations to provide adequate facilities and/or care for the aged and disabled in their community.
Believes nations willing to provide adequate facilities and/or care for their aged and disabled citizens, but who need help from the international community to provide the same, should receive that help but must agree to abide by measures to ensure the money is being spent correctly and being used only for services that benefit those aged/disabled who need it.
Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.
Care setting may include, but are not limited to, one or more the following, nursing homes/hostels, the person's own home, group homes, homes of relatives, and respite centres.
The accreditation team will negotiate an agreement with each receiving nation to decide on a basic standards level to suit that nations needs, while ensuring aged/disabled citizens receive the care and attention they require to live their lives as independently and contributively as possible. A receiving nation may negotiate an agreement to cover as much or as little of its aged/disabled care system as it wants and needs.
The team will also work with each receiving nation to ensure that all aspects of the individual nation's own culture and religion is respected to the highest degree.
The accreditation team will inspect and/or review UN funded care services/facilities in receiver nations 12 months after originally giving the primary donation to ensure the basic standards previously agreed upon are being met, and funds are being spent to benefit the aged/disabled citizens using the facility/service and not the individuals/groups running them.
If all standards are being met the receiver nation will be noted as accredited, and may receive ongoing donations on a regular basis to maintain and/or improve those standards.
The accreditation team, to ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed terms of receiving donation money, will then carry out irregular surprise inspections/reviews.
If the agreed upon standards are not being met after the first inspection, the accreditation team may grant an extension of time for the nation concerned to comply.
If the receiver nation continues to refuse to meet the agreed upon standards and/or abuses the program, the accreditation team has the authority to suspend or refuse any further funding to that nation.
The accreditation team also has the authority to reduce or cancel donation money at any future date to nations they deem economically capable of funding its own system.
Any receiver nation may withdraw from the Aged/Disabled Accreditation Program at any time without penalty if they no longer want or need donation money.
This is the phrase that explicitly bans any 'optional compliance' resolutions [either 'nations may choose to comply with this resolution or not,' or 'UN nations are sovereign and may choose whether or not to comply with any and all UN resolutions']. It's also illegal to make any statements that the UN cannot legislate on a given subject [first bolded section doesn't have 'as long as your vision isn't anything to do with...']. Carried further a repeal only consisting of 'it violates national sovereignty' is illegal, simply because it's not a concept the NSUN is in any way bound to respect to begin with.
I think we're crossing terms here: I'm more used to 'national sovereignty' with regards to UN proposals as the illegal forms of national sovereignty proposal, namely optional compliance and 'X is no longer any of the UN's business.'
(I only quoted the relevent part of this post)
I'm in the process of writing a proposal now that may be illegal under what you have said here, but I'm not sure. Nations do have the option of not paticipating in the scheme it revolves around unless they want to, and I don't know if that would be seen as optional compliance with the proposal or not.
After reading what you have said here, I'm wondering if you'd please take a look at this and tell me if this type of writing is ok, or not. If not, I will need to change it. The strength will be mild.
Aged/Disabled Care Accreditation Program
Noting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home and/or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens who are in need of assistance.
In addition, noting many richer nations would be willing to donate money to an international aid fund for the purpose of assisting in providing such care but are reluctant due to the possibility of corruption and the money not being spent for the purpose it was originally given.
Encourages all UN member nations to provide adequate facilities and/or care for the aged and disabled in their community.
Believes nations willing to provide adequate facilities and/or care for their aged and disabled citizens, but who need help from the international community to provide the same, should receive that help but must agree to abide by measures to ensure the money is being spent correctly and being used only for services that benefit those aged/disabled who need it.
Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.
Care setting may include, but are not limited to, one or more the following, nursing homes/hostels, the person's own home, group homes, homes of relatives, and respite centres.
The accreditation team will negotiate an agreement with each receiving nation to decide on a basic standards level to suit that nations needs, while ensuring aged/disabled citizens receive the care and attention they require to live their lives as independently and contributively as possible. A receiving nation may negotiate an agreement to cover as much or as little of its aged/disabled care system as it wants and needs.
The team will also work with each receiving nation to ensure that all aspects of the individual nation's own culture and religion is respected to the highest degree.
The accreditation team will inspect and/or review UN funded care services/facilities in receiver nations 12 months after originally giving the primary donation to ensure the basic standards previously agreed upon are being met, and funds are being spent to benefit the aged/disabled citizens using the facility/service and not the individuals/groups running them.
If all standards are being met the receiver nation will be noted as accredited, and may receive ongoing donations on a regular basis to maintain and/or improve those standards.
The accreditation team, to ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed terms of receiving donation money, will then carry out irregular surprise inspections/reviews.
If the agreed upon standards are not being met after the first inspection, the accreditation team may grant an extension of time for the nation concerned to comply.
If the receiver nation continues to refuse to meet the agreed upon standards and/or abuses the program, the accreditation team has the authority to suspend or refuse any further funding to that nation.
The accreditation team also has the authority to reduce or cancel donation money at any future date to nations they deem economically capable of funding its own system.
Any receiver nation may withdraw from the Aged/Disabled Accreditation Program at any time without penalty if they no longer want or need donation money.