NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been trying to get a resolution passed, but have been meeting resistance from the moderators who have removed two versions of the resolution so far. The latest version actually got a response in the way of a telegram that stated that the first three articles of the resolution had already been addressed in previous resolutions and that the last was illegal under current UN rules. I can accept that the last one needs to be removed if it breaks the rules, but I disagree that the first three have already been addressed. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, all the previous resolutions on these topics impose UN restrictions on member Nations, whereas the proposed resolution would prevent the UN from placing such restrictions and leaving control of these issues up to the individual nations. Where before the UN was imposing its control on the member nations, this proposal would prevent abuses of that power.

Please, read the proposal below, and inform me of your opinions, suggestions, and explinations of what resolutions have already prevented the UN from interfering in this way, what should be added, subtracted, or changed in the proposal, and if you think this is a good or bad idea.

Thank you,
Grand Duke William of Ichmod

**********************************************************

Limitations on UN Powers
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

It is the responsibility of all governments to defend and protect the rights of the governed. To that end, it is just and proper that those governments protect those rights through the limitation of its own powers. Through the restriction of power, a government prevents the violation of rights by the tyranny of the majority. In that spirit, it is necessary for the NationStates United Nations (NSUN) to limit its own powers to grant security to the rights of its member nations and their populations.

Article I: The NSUN may not dictate or impose upon any nation a specific form or philosophy for governmental structure.

It is the right and responsibility for the citizens of a nation to develop a method of government most conducive to their own happiness without the interference or influence of any international body. Imposition of any governmental system, including democracy, without the consent of the governed is tyranny.

Article II: The NSUN may not prevent or restrict the rights of any individual or nation to defend itself from aggression.

It is the right of all people to defend their own existence without fear of international persecution. That any person or nation should be prevented by any NSUN resolution from acting in its own defense is unconscionable.

Article III: The NSUN may not endorse, promote, limit, or prevent the manner or means of religious worship or philosophy.

It is imperative that the rights of individuals and nations to choose the manner of their own conduct of religious or philosophical matters be allowed in a manner free from international interference.

Article IV: The NSUN will confine its interests to those matters with international implications and of universal human rights.

The NSUN is charged with providing nations a means with which to resolve matters of international importance. By involving itself with the internal laws and practices of any nation, the NSUN violates the sovereign rights of self determination of those nations. Through the limitation of its scope to those matters where all nations will be allowed to develop as they choose, the NSUN preserves the rights and privileges of its member nations.

*note that Article IV has been deemed illeagal under the rules and will be removed from any further drafts of the resolution*

Article I: The NSUN may not dictate or impose upon any nation a specific form or philosophy for governmental structure.Already contained in the UN Proposal rules.

Article II: The NSUN may not prevent or restrict the rights of any individual or nation to defend itself from aggression.Already covered by a previous Resolution.

Article III: The NSUN may not endorse, promote, limit, or prevent the manner or means of religious worship or philosophy.Already covered by numerous Resolutions.

Article IV: The NSUN will confine its interests to those matters with international implications and of universal human rights.Restriction of the UN. Illegal.

the NSUN violates the sovereign rights of self determination of those nations.Member nations sacrifice those "rights" by joining the UN.

*note that Article IV has been deemed illeagal under the rules and will be removed from any further drafts of the resolution*You're darn right its illegal. Not sure why you bothered including here it since you've already decided to not include it in a final draft.

I suggest you search for the UN Security Act and Universal Bill of Rights, among others, in this thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572) First point is covered by the rules (see sticky on this forum).

Worthy effort, but don't try to fight the mods on this. It has all been done.

Already contained in the UN Proposal rules.

Already covered by a previous Resolution.

Already covered by numerous Resolutions.

Restriction of the UN. Illegal.

Member nations sacrifice those "rights" by joining the UN.

You're darn right its illegal. Not sure why you bothered including here it since you've already decided to not include it in a final draft.

Please, if you will, quote the resolutions. As I said in my initial post, all the resolutions I saw limited Nation powers, this resolution would prevent such limitations.

To your response to Article I: There is no rule which prevents the UN from imposing a form of government on a nation, or if there is, it has not been applied evenly. I can give the example of Resolution #8 which imposes democracy on all memeber states.

As for why I included the article to be removed, it was for completeness. I acknowledge that it is against the rules and will comply. I felt it would be unfair to the moderator who sent the telegram if I were to leave it out and imply that I had been treated unfairly in some way.

To your response to Article I: There is no rule which prevents the UN from imposing a form of government on a nation, or if there is, it has not been applied evenly. I can give the example of Resolution #8 which imposes democracy on all memeber states.
Aye, but the rules have changed since then.

* Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's descretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

Clear enough? Now, why don't you do your research, rather than expecting it to done for you?

EDIT: Hack, descretion is a typo.

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's descretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

Unless I'm mistaken, this prevents the banning of governmental types, but not the imposition of others as was the intent of Article I. If I could have clarification on this point, I'd appreciate it.

Please, if you will, quote the resolutions. As I said in my initial post, all the resolutions I saw limited Nation powers, this resolution would prevent such limitations.

To your response to Article I: There is no rule which prevents the UN from imposing a form of government on a nation, or if there is, it has not been applied evenly. I can give the example of Resolution #8 which imposes democracy on all memeber states.

As for why I included the article to be removed, it was for completeness. I acknowledge that it is against the rules and will comply. I felt it would be unfair to the moderator who sent the telegram if I were to leave it out and imply that I had been treated unfairly in some way.

Aside from the fact that the rules have had a complete overhaul at least twice, have changed countless times, and there was at most one moderator answering thousands of questions, moderating the forums and looking at the then 100 pages of proposals, there is the fact that UNR 8 DOES NOT mandate democracy. If you read the resolution carefully, the most it would require of your nation is to have the local PTA meetings have its representative determined by vote from the parents there and give no other election capabilities whatsoever and you would meet UNR 8. You could have an advisory committee that is elected. There are thousands of things you could do that would be far from calling your nation democratic that would meed UNR 8. So stop with the bull please.

I suggest you search for the UN Security Act and Universal Bill of Rights, among others, in this thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572) First point is covered by the rules (see sticky on this forum).

Worthy effort, but don't try to fight the mods on this. It has all been done.


Your right about the UN Security Act, it covers what I put in Article II. I'll remove it from the future versions as well, thanks.

The Universal Bill of Rights however covers individual rights only, not national rights.

I have been trying to get a resolution passed, but have been meeting resistance from the moderators who have removed two versions of the resolution so far. The latest version actually got a response in the way of a telegram that stated that the first three articles of the resolution had already been addressed in previous resolutions and that the last was illegal under current UN rules. I can accept that the last one needs to be removed if it breaks the rules, but I disagree that the first three have already been addressed. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, all the previous resolutions on these topics impose UN restrictions on member Nations, whereas the proposed resolution would prevent the UN from placing such restrictions and leaving control of these issues up to the individual nations. Where before the UN was imposing its control on the member nations, this proposal would prevent abuses of that power.

This is why it's good to always draft first - and why even the best resolution authors and the most productive - LAE, Mik, PC - all have several rounds of drafting. The complexity of UN law is so great that only a handful know it all. However, I'll see what I can help you with

Please, read the proposal below, and inform me of your opinions, suggestions, and explinations of what resolutions have already prevented the UN from interfering in this way, what should be added, subtracted, or changed in the proposal, and if you think this is a good or bad idea.

Thank you,
Grand Duke William of Ichmod

Yep

**********************************************************

Limitations on UN Powers
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

I ALWAYS cringe if the strength is strong. Very few resolutions that truly deserve a strong rating are legal. The few that are are so radical, they have a small chance in hell of passing.

It is the responsibility of all governments to defend and protect the rights of the governed.

It's funny - both National Sovereigntists and International Federalists believe that - but the "governed" is where they disagree on. International Federalists think the right of the individual needs to be protected, while National Sovereigntists believe it is the right of the nation.

To that end, it is just and proper that those governments protect those rights through the limitation of its own powers. Through the restriction of power, a government prevents the violation of rights by the tyranny of the majority.

I could go 20 rounds with you on tyranny of majority and its....oddities in application to International law.

In that spirit, it is necessary for the NationStates United Nations (NSUN) to limit its own powers to grant security to the rights of its member nations and their populations.

I disagree - though I disagreed with your arguments so that's far from a surprise

Article I: The NSUN may not dictate or impose upon any nation a specific form or philosophy for governmental structure.

Illegal as of The Most Glorious Protocols, published in early May, 2005. I do believe it was illegal under the Endonian (sp?) protocols.

It is the right and responsibility for the citizens of a nation to develop a method of government most conducive to their own happiness without the interference or influence of any international body. Imposition of any governmental system, including democracy, without the consent of the governed is tyranny.

I would be interested, how is it that we could hear the opinions of the governed if they are in a dictatorship? The individual is handily ignored and their popular opinion is neither collected nor listened to. A rather interesting argument.

Though again, who is the "governed"?

Article II: The NSUN may not prevent or restrict the rights of any individual or nation to defend itself from aggression.

UNR 110: United Nations Security Act which it has been ruled does just that. In fact, it went through a rather extensive legality debate after its passing to figure out the full extent of the text in the resolution - the conclusion of which I still disagree with but there are much more prudent things to address.

It is the right of all people to defend their own existence without fear of international persecution. That any person or nation should be prevented by any NSUN resolution from acting in its own defense is unconscionable.

Thank you, whatever.

Article III: The NSUN may not endorse, promote, limit, or prevent the manner or means of religious worship or philosophy.

It would actually be classified as an ideological ban. The prevention of nations from doing such things to some degree is dealt with by the Universal Human Rights.....but not to the same extent. There have been a few moderator rulings on the matter of seperation of church and state and it has been deemed an ideological ban - thus illegal.

It is imperative that the rights of individuals and nations to choose the manner of their own conduct of religious or philosophical matters be allowed in a manner free from international interference.

Whatever

Article IV: The NSUN will confine its interests to those matters with international implications and of universal human rights.

As Hack said

The NSUN is charged with providing nations a means with which to resolve matters of international importance. By involving itself with the internal laws and practices of any nation, the NSUN violates the sovereign rights of self determination of those nations. Through the limitation of its scope to those matters where all nations will be allowed to develop as they choose, the NSUN preserves the rights and privileges of its member nations.

Those nations have never been guaranteed nor shall they be able to be guaranteed a sovereign right of self determination beyond what has been granted in Article 2 of UNR 49: Rights and Duties of UN States - basically, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't contradict the International community's rules. If you want to be sovereign, I suggest you step outside of the UN. While you can promote national sovereignty, you remain at her mercy as long as you are here. You gave up your sovereign right for self determination when you joined.

*note that Article IV has been deemed illeagal under the rules and will be removed from any further drafts of the resolution*[/COLOR]

Fine

Universal Bill of Rights, Descrimination Accord, Religious Freedom, Rights of Minorities and Women...

Furthermore, Game Moderators didn't even exist when UNR8 was passed.

Unless I'm mistaken, this prevents the banning of governmental types, but not the imposition of others as was the intent of Article I. If I could have clarification on this point, I'd appreciate it.

No - ideological bans also covers imposition of ideological policies. Your basically saying the reverse argument is more valid than the original one.

"Communism is bad so we should ban it"
"Capitalism is good so we should force it upon all - which would then make communism banned"

Not entirely true, but the jist is there.

Articles I and II are also covered fairly thoroughly in #49, Rights and Duties of UN States ... which would have to be repealed before your alterations could be allowed.

Article IV: The NSUN will confine its interests to those matters with international implications and of universal human rights.

*note that Article IV has been deemed illeagal under the rules and will be removed from any further drafts of the resolution*

While I do note that this clause is illegal anyway, I would re-write it as such to make it less open to abuse.

Article IV: The NSUN will focus its purpose and action solely on addressing matters of international cooperation and conflict while advocating and fostering international peace and prosperity.

I would suggest using "focus" rather than "confine" to indicate a positive and constructive approach to international affairs, rather than a hands-off and negligent sort of approach.

The term "interests" is too vague and limited for my taste. I replaced it with "purpose and action".

Your original phrase, "international implications" could be used as grounds to legislate on almost anything at all, given the ease with which it is often possible to make connections between national decisions and international consequences.

Just some random thoughts based on stuff I would write if I had a chance to write a charter for the NSUN.

Already contained in the UN Proposal rules.


One thing to remember, is that Frisbeeteria's "Rights and Duties" resolution was really nothing more than a creative rewriting of the UN proposal rules at the time. Personally I think it was very well done. Sometimes taking the rules and recasting them in a resolution emphasizes them.