NationStates Jolt Archive

Continued from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474420&page=3

I am morally superior. No debate needed. :p

I'm not saying sovereigntists or federalists are morally superior, or that either claims such. I'm saying this idea of an "international issue" seems terribly solid when trying to hide behind it, and terribly vague when actually settling down to define it.

I'm not saying sovereigntists or federalists are morally superior, or that either claims such. I'm saying this idea of an "international issue" seems terribly solid when trying to hide behind it, and terribly vague when actually settling down to define it.

Meh - moral superiority was just the title 'cause that's where the hijack started

I'm saying this idea of an "international issue" seems terribly solid when trying to hide behind it, and terribly vague when actually settling down to define it.

He makes a good point, actually. Where do you draw the line between what the UN can and cannot legislate. And if you do try to draw a line, then you get a thousand othe rpeople wanting to re-draw it. I suppose you really can't provide a broad definition of what an international issue is, simply a personal definition. So I suppose in the end that leaves us debating and voting for our personal beleifs on the matter...and in the end, why doesn't that work?

The line I personally draw is:

Does it cross international borders (trade, diplomacy, war, etc are whithin the UN's jurisdiction)

or

Is it a true human rights issue (genocide, etc; I don't consider euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty to be human rights issues)

I would say the UN concerns itself with basically a combination of fundamental human rights that everyone would agree are necessary, and decisions that go beyond politics and concern other nations, ie. emergency aid, or the recent weather organisation.
There is also the financial aspect, as the UN could conceivably become a free-trade/information organisation. However, this is highly unlikely.

The line I personally draw is:

Does it cross international borders (trade, diplomacy, war, etc are whithin the UN's jurisdiction)

or

Is it a true human rights issue (genocide, etc; I don't consider euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty to be human rights issues)

I pretty much agree (though I do consider euthanasia a human rights issue. In Wyldtree we believe the right to death is as fundamental as the right to life. A personal choice/human right.) Not to open that can of worms. Just to note my nation's stance... ;)

I don't have anything one could deem as a coherent policy on the matter. I just look at an issue and think "National, International, or non-legislatable"

I don't have anything one could deem as a coherent policy on the matter. I just look at an issue and think "National, International, or non-legislatable"

And pretty much always decide international.

And pretty much always decide international.
Someone has clearly not been keeping up with the decisions of the Forgotten Territories, nor has that person shown a true understanding of our position, nor really a true understanding of government. If you honestly think that we see these 200 word documents as actual laws, you clearly have no understanding of how legal systems work. They are frameworks. If you had bothered to check, you would find that we have made many decisions at the national level that we have not felt a pressing need to make at the international level. Further, if you dig any deeper, you would find that there are areas where people have tried to push through resolutions and we have actually stated that we felt they belonged at the national level.

If all you have are fallacious insults to our delegation, I ask that you move along. We have other issues to discuss and don't wish to put up with such slander.

Meh. We've already explained (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10161369&postcount=104) more than once (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10291320&postcount=49) where we feel the line should be drawn.

I am probably the most morally inferior because I quite simply abhor morals.

Is it a true human rights issue (genocide, etc; I don't consider euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty to be human rights issues)
I believe they very much are human rights issues. How can they not be? However, the problem with euthanasia and abortion (I'm not touching the death penalty here) is that they don't lend themselves to black and white positions (no matter how much debaters tend to assume they do). Euthanasia in particular is incredibly thorny. I'm just about content to have my own nation endorse it but there's no way I'd vote to extend this 'right' to an international level.

Sorry, I should have added fundemental - and no matter how hard you try, the right to have an abortion is not on the same level of fundemental human rights as the right not to be burned alive because you are a different skin. However, in both cases both sides of the argument can claim that there side is the one that is arguing the human rights side of the argument. E.g. It is the right of every mother to have an abortion vs. it is the right of a feotus to live.

However, in both cases both sides of the argument can claim that there side is the one that is arguing the human rights side of the argument. E.g. It is the right of every mother to have an abortion vs. it is the right of a feotus to live.Aye, it's about how you approached the argument and the journey you took to get there. All of us are tainted by our past experiences, and that taints how we view and act in the present.

If history had dealt a different hand, person A could have a very different position on the arguement.

I think I've gone off on a tangent there. Ignore me.

I've always had a very broad view (as others will no doubt know already) about where the U.N. is entitled to intervene (i.e. in everything). On moral issues, I don't like to really endorse morality, most of all because I don't believe in absolute or even very certain moral values, there are simply too many grey areas. I would however, see most so called "moral" questions as civil or human rights ones and I believe our only "moral" duty as an organisation is to make sure rights such as those we define as "inviolable" are extended to all. I personally view the rights to die, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and to control one's reproduction as essential civil and human rights, hence I'd always be happy to legislate in favour of them through the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We share Cobdenia's views on ths subject.

Stop staring at our chest.

I personally view the rights to die, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and to control one's reproduction as essential civil and human rights, hence I'd always be happy to legislate in favour of them through the U.N.
I agree with the first two, but not the last... but as has already been said... let's not go there ;)

Then of course there's the debatability of what constitutes 'cruel and unusual'.

*pops out of hole in wall*

I'm not saying sovereigntists or federalists are morally superior, or that either claims such. I'm saying this idea of an "international issue" seems terribly solid when trying to hide behind it, and terribly vague when actually settling down to define it.

That's something FL and I discussed quite some time ago in a certain thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907). And you're quite right about most people not having a very clear picture of what an international issue actually is.

A long time ago on the old NS forums I made a thread about "drawing the National Sovereignty line" where folks discussed what they considered valid for the UN to legislate on, but I can't find that thread using the search function here on Jolt.:(

*pops back in hole in wall*

A long time ago on the old NS forums I made a thread about "drawing the National Sovereignty line" where folks discussed what they considered valid for the UN to legislate on, but I can't find that thread using the search function here on Jolt.:(
That's because the Jolt search function is functionally useless. Google on the other hand gave me this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-372178.html)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That's because the Jolt search function is functionally useless. Google on the other hand gave me this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-372178.html)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well it took some time, but I did find the thread using the link you gave me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-372178.html

Well it took some time, but I did find the thread using the link you gave me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-372178.html
Actually, after I posted it, I manged to find the thread too and updated the link.

Actually, after I posted it, I manged to find the thread too and updated the link.

The Don is on top of things as always... :)

Blimey, I'm onside with the sovereigntists in that thread.

Blimey, I'm onside with the sovereigntists in that thread.

It must've been our ad campaign that swayed you.

http://www.unitedscripters.com/spellbinder/more1/teehee.jpg

It must've been our ad campaign that swayed you.

<snip>

As in, he's left the sovereigntists now :D

(Not that he's joined IntFed....but still)

It must've been our ad campaign that swayed you.

http://www.unitedscripters.com/spellbinder/more1/teehee.jpg
Hey! where'd you get that picture of me? I'll leave it to you to figure out which one I am.
*walks off humming "C is for Cookie*

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Hey! where'd you get that picture of me? I'll leave it to you to figure out which one I am.
*walks off humming "C is for Cookie*

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

So are you sitting on the list of people waiting for lung transplants or something? I suppose that's one new advancement in technology that you could use....

The line I personally draw is:

Does it cross international borders (trade, diplomacy, war, etc are whithin the UN's jurisdiction)

or

Is it a true human rights issue (genocide, etc; I don't consider euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty to be human rights issues)

My government completely agrees with the two criterion presented by the Ambassador from Cobdenia.


OOC: These are honestly the *two* cases where RL international law applies ... something must either directly cross an international border -or- threaten to destabilize a region (which genocide tends to do ... it obviously angers neighboring populations). I know that many people would like to "share" their freedoms and beliefs with others, but in RL our governments work to keep local control and they aren't really jumping in to stop horrible human rights abuses unless they threaten to spill over to other places.

It must've been our ad campaign that swayed you.

"This isn't the resolution you are voting for ..."

This isn't the resolution I'm voting for ... *blink*

That's something FL and I discussed quite some time ago in a certain thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907). And you're quite right about most people not having a very clear picture of what an international issue actually is.
Yes. Most people indeed.

I'm okay with U.N. involvement in international trade, whether it be free trade or fair trade, and won't use national sovereignty as an argument against such resolutions.

I'm not okay with U.N. involvement in domestic issues, whether they be social or economic, and will consistently pull out the national sovereignty card. Every time. Seriously.

Cases where a proposal is walking the line between domestic and international issues will be considered on a case by case basis.
Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying, in which case I'll try to phrase it better, but saying "an international issue is anything that's not a domestic issue", where 'domestic issue' is defined as 'anything that's not an international issue'...doesn't exactly help me understand the difference.

Yes. Most people indeed.


Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying, in which case I'll try to phrase it better, but saying "an international issue is anything that's not a domestic issue", where 'domestic issue' is defined as 'anything that's not an international issue'...doesn't exactly help me understand the difference.

The difference between domestic and international shouldn't even remotely be circular as described by the above question ... Cobdenia already tackled that, but to rephrase what their ambassador pointed out:

International issues cross international borders.
Domestic issues remain contained within domestic borders.

Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying, in which case I'll try to phrase it better, but saying "an international issue is anything that's not a domestic issue", where 'domestic issue' is defined as 'anything that's not an international issue'...doesn't exactly help me understand the difference.Oh, Good Lord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10639093&postcount=12). It doesn't exactly require a doctoral degree in International Relations to understand what "international" means, you know. Whyn't you consult a dictionary?

From the previous thread:

Simple. Does a national policy in Cluichstan, for instance, affect Golgothastan? If so, then it's an international issue. If not, this body has no business shoving its nose into it.

I disagree. For example, sale tax rates in Cluichstan undoubtedly affect (well, ok, not Golgothastan, but) other nations you trade with. Yet that would seem to be a 'national issue': I wouldn't want the UN dictating something on that level.


Sorry...directly affects.

Well, you're going to have to define "directly". Because otherwise it seems like you're saying it's ok for the UN to dictate your immigration policies.

Oh, Good Lord. It doesn't exactly require a doctoral degree in International Relations to understand what "international" means, you know. Whyn't you consult a dictionary?

Um....it's a bit more complex than that

I'm not saying sovereigntists or federalists are morally superior, or that either claims such. I'm saying this idea of an "international issue" seems terribly solid when trying to hide behind it, and terribly vague when actually settling down to define it.

Oh, Good Lord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10639093&postcount=12). It doesn't exactly require a doctoral degree in International Relations to understand what "international" means, you know. Whyn't you consult a dictionary?
k.

Main Entry: 1in·ter·na·tion·al
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'nash-n&l, -'na-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations <international trade>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations <international movement>
3 : active, known, or reaching beyond national boundaries <an international reputation>
Abortion relates to two or more nations.

Euthanasia relates to two or more nations.

Drugs relate to two or more nations.

Standard sizes for catflaps relate to two or more nations.

Re: "Good Lord".

We share your views on moral rightness, but we recognize that other nations may not. Therefore, our shared values are not universal, and the question remains whether the United Nations has a mandate to legislate morality. We hold it does not.

Establishment of moral rightness is question for organized religion and other institututions to which society assigns moral authority. Determining how societal morals apply to the law is a question for national, state and local governments. But what role does the UN play?

Even though the UN may have a role as a referee where dueling national standards collide on an international scale, we hold it does not have a similar role as a referee over dueling values systems. Our values may differ from those of Boricuastan. So what? The purpose of international law is not to decide which values warrant enforcement in all member states, but to establish international standards in areas where member nations may potentially have a conflict.

Diplomatic immunity; international patent and copyright law; international trade agreements (for example, GFDA); establishing international agencies for the betterment of humanity (International Red Cross, Microcredit Bazaar, UNSBE); universal visa and passport standards; international terrorism; international treaties pertaining to war crimes, acts of war, POW status or official neutrality; even global disarmament agreements (which we always oppose) -- all are fair game where the United Nations and international law are concerned.

Whether men should be allowed to fuck each other? Not so much.
It is interesting that you say the UN has no authority to rule authoritatively on values, and in the next paragraph place intellectual property law, place the judgment of war crimes, and even place the mission of "the betterment of humanity" within the ambit of the UN. These are all based on values. By deciding an international copyright law, the UN is deciding on the value that you know very well many societies do not hold, that artists should be entitled to hold copyright on their works, or that inventors should hold patents. If "property is theft" is not a value, then what is it?

Your relativism is admirable, and in many respects I agree with you - even if it times I wouldn't say such difficulties place law-making in any theoretical sense outside the preserve of the UN, then practical problems are sufficient to render such attempts doomed. But absolute relativism is not a basis on which to determine the propriety of international law. That's not to say such an approach would be unworkable - I can think of possible resolutions, and even some passed resolutions, that are essentially value-neutral - but that it would be counter-productive, as it would fail to utilise the resources the UN and its members have available. You yourself, in outlining what is within the scope of UN legislation, have acted based on a number of values:

"there is a right to intellectual property"
"terrorism is always a crime, and should be treated separately from or at least alongside its component infringements"
"protectionism should be eliminated"
"prisoners of war have certain rights, which should be observed by all parties at all times"

I'm inclined to agree with some of these. And to admit that they are values. So the UN should legislate based on certain moral or ethical judgments, through work of your own examples.

I too think that there should be a body of international law; I wouldn't belong to the United Nations otherwise. I simply think such a body should be restricted to international issues, like: [examples snipped from copy & pasting - sorry]. Don't pretend like you're the only ones with a mind for internationalism, just because sovereigntists like myself think there should be a damn good reason before the international community interferes in national affairs. And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.
I agree, fully - except I think we differ on what "international issues" are. But certainly, I don't think the UN works well as a maker of domestic policy - and I don't think it should work as such. That doesn't, however, mean that aspects of domestic policy won't be subsumed into agreements on international issues.

Abortion relates to two or more nations.

Euthanasia relates to two or more nations.

Drugs relate to two or more nations.

Standard sizes for catflaps relate to two or more nations.By that token everything is an "international issue," but I fear a modicum of common sense might settle the matter.

Whether abortion should be legal in one nation is a matter for that nation's internal policymakers. Whether euthanasia should be legal in one nation is matter for that nation's policymakers. Whether drugs should be legal in one nation is a matter for that nation's policymakers. Determining standard sizes for catflaps in one nation is a matter for that nation's policymakers.

The international drug tade, however, is international. Transporting children across international borders for the purposes of attaining an abortion is international. The international trade of pet supplies is international.

Plain enough?

You yourself, in outlining what is within the scope of UN legislation, have acted based on a number of values:

"there is a right to intellectual property"
"terrorism is always a crime, and should be treated separately from or at least alongside its component infringements"
"protectionism should be eliminated"
"prisoners of war have certain rights, which should be observed by all parties at all times"Not necessarily. The values I assert here are: International intellectual-property rights are an international issue.
International terrorism is an international issue.
Trade is an international issue.
Treatment of POWs is an international issue.I haven't even (I don't think) said which position I would adopt (which "values" I would exhort) on such matters (except I said that I always oppose GD proposals, and that record was quashed when voted for NNPA); just that they all are fair game where international intervention is concerned.

By that token everything is an "international issue," but I fear a modicum of common sense might settle the matter.

Whether abortion should be legal in one nation is a matter for that nation's internal policymakers. Whether euthanasia should be legal in one nation is matter for that nation's policymakers. Whether drugs should be legal in one nation is a matter for that nation's policymakers. Determining standard sizes for catflaps in one nation is a matter for that nation's policymakers.

The international drug tade, however, is international. Transporting children across international borders for the purposes of attaining an abortion is international. The international trade of pet supplies is international.

Plain enough?
If "Common Sense Act II" accomplished anything, it at least showed sense was far from 'common'.

My point is that in those examples, there is nothing inherently national about them. Take euthanasia. In probably every nation, there are people who fall sick to terminal debilitating diseases. The concept of a nation state, the physical boundaries of a nation, have absolutely nothing to do with that decision. You say, as a point of fact, that euthanasia is a consideration for national, domestic lawmakers only. You don't say why. I'll say why not: because a human life is a human life, in whatever country. Whilst I don't necessarily think there are moral absolutes, and whilst I agree with a level of relativist tolerance, the ethical nature of euthanasia does not change from one nation to another.

Now, I'm not saying it therefore goes automatically to the UN to resolve in it. In the catflap example, just because there are catflaps in many nations, doesn't mean it's any of the UN's business to legislate on them. There is nothing accomplished by it, and furthermore, the UN can't possibly take into consideration the varying national concerns. In the example of euthanasia, there is only one issue at stake. The UN can decide not to rule on it. It is equally legitimate for it to issue a statement one way or the other.

You are taking these things, and saying that because nothing physically crosses another border, it is national. Yet that ignores the effects that actions contained within what is after all an entirely artificial physical section can have outside their borders. For example, the formation of cartels and monopolies within one nation distorts the global market. I support free trade, and it seems reasonable to me to break up such distorting factors - and I consider the UN to have legitimacy to do so.

If all nations lived in bubbles, entirely isolated, then I would find your view more compelling. They don't: you admit as much by reference to the international transfers you mention. It is well known that there are some countries with a "sex trade". I assume you would put things such as the legality of prostitution, the age of consent, and the legality of rape and pedophilia, as national issues - and, in a sense, they are. But they fuel an international issue, and whilst it is nice to think that we can always reach in and pluck out the middle man, sometimes dealing with things at source is the most effective solution. International problems can have their roots in national affairs: why should the UN stop there?

And, whilst I know you're getting frustrated with me, and I'm sorry - I don't want to seem like I'm dragging you on, at all, because you're among my favourite posters in this forum, and I respect your views - you are still only listing examples. If your approach is entirely "evaluate each case as it comes", that's fine. But when you tell, as a point of fact, that abortion "is not an international issue", you can perhaps understand my confusion as to how I was meant to divine this.

Not necessarily. The values I assert here are:
International intellectual-property rights are an international issue.
International terrorism is an international issue.
Trade is an international issue.
Treatment of POWs is an international issue.

I haven't even (I don't think) said which position I would adopt (which "values" I would enhort) on such matters (except I said that I always oppose GD proposals, and that record was quashed when voted for NNPA); just that they all are fair game where international intervention is concerned.
Right. But what you are saying is "it is legitimate for the UN to rule on a particular value in these cases". Whether you agree with those values is neither here nor there - that's not the point of discussion. What is is that you claimed that the UN should not adopt a position based on a value. How can it possibly rule in any direction on IP rights without adopting such a value? Why is the value of a prisoner of war's life an international concern, even in the case of a wholly self-contained civil war, and a pregant woman's life, and the laws that might restrict her into, as you mentioned earlier, being subjected to abuse whilst paying smugglers and pirates to get her to a country with more liberal abortion laws, not an international concern?

Again, it's just examples, and not a concrete definition. Which, if you are going to concretely dismiss the idea that abortion is an international issue, would seem to be helpful.

If "Common Sense Act II" accomplished anything, it at least showed sense was far from 'common'.

My point is that in those examples, there is nothing inherently national about them. Take euthanasia. In probably every nation, there are people who fall sick to terminal debilitating diseases. The concept of a nation state, the physical boundaries of a nation, have absolutely nothing to do with that decision. You say, as a point of fact, that euthanasia is a consideration for national, domestic lawmakers only. You don't say why. I'll say why not: because a human life is a human life, in whatever country. Whilst I don't necessarily think there are moral absolutes, and whilst I agree with a level of relativist tolerance, the ethical nature of euthanasia does not change from one nation to another.

Now, I'm not saying it therefore goes automatically to the UN to resolve in it. In the catflap example, just because there are catflaps in many nations, doesn't mean it's any of the UN's business to legislate on them. There is nothing accomplished by it, and furthermore, the UN can't possibly take into consideration the varying national concerns. In the example of euthanasia, there is only one issue at stake. The UN can decide not to rule on it. It is equally legitimate for it to issue a statement one way or the other.

You are taking these things, and saying that because nothing physically crosses another border, it is national. Yet that ignores the effects that actions contained within what is after all an entirely artificial physical section can have outside their borders. For example, the formation of cartels and monopolies within one nation distorts the global market. I support free trade, and it seems reasonable to me to break up such distorting factors - and I consider the UN to have legitimacy to do so.

If all nations lived in bubbles, entirely isolated, then I would find your view more compelling. They don't: you admit as much by reference to the international transfers you mention. It is well known that there are some countries with a "sex trade". I assume you would put things such as the legality of prostitution, the age of consent, and the legality of rape and pedophilia, as national issues - and, in a sense, they are. But they fuel an international issue, and whilst it is nice to think that we can always reach in and pluck out the middle man, sometimes dealing with things at source is the most effective solution. International problems can have their roots in national affairs: why should the UN stop there?

And, whilst I know you're getting frustrated with me, and I'm sorry - I don't want to seem like I'm dragging you on, at all, because you're among my favourite posters in this forum, and I respect your views - you are still only listing examples. If your approach is entirely "evaluate each case as it comes", that's fine. But when you tell, as a point of fact, that abortion "is not an international issue", you can perhaps understand my confusion as to how I was meant to divine this.Well reasoned. Have a cookie.

I wish I could make as much sense as this sometimes. :(

Well reasoned. Have a cookie.

I wish I could make as much sense as this sometimes. :(Well... you could. Just start off with a pithy, tired cliche and proceed to change or ignore definitions whenever they don't suit you.

Well... you could. Just start off with a pithy, tired cliche and proceed to change or ignore definitions whenever they don't suit you.
Which definitions did I change or ignore?

EDIT: And I'm aware my joke wasn't funny...I just thought it odd for a relativist to appeal to "common sense".

And, whilst I know you're getting frustrated with me, and I'm sorry - I don't want to seem like I'm dragging you on, at all, because you're among my favourite posters in this forum, and I respect your views - you are still only listing examples. If your approach is entirely "evaluate each case as it comes", that's fine. But when you tell, as a point of fact, that abortion "is not an international issue", you can perhaps understand my confusion as to how I was meant to divine this.Well, OK. I appreciate the kind words; they are at times few and far between on this forum. [Awaits the usual Hirotan lecture. :p] I am getting tired of this topic, and I am concerned that you seem to be trying to muddle the issue so that anything could conceivably be seen as international in scope -- but by God, I just can't let a post from a friendly nation with an oddly sacrilegious name and an affinity for the subject of the one of my favorite band's music videos go unanswered, so here goes.

Long on examples, short on any governing line of logic that would produce such examples, you say? Well, let me try to say this one more time. Issues that directly affect bilateral relationships are international; issues about nation's internal policies, even where they may indirectly affect bilateral relationships are not. Thus, Enn's previous drug-trafficking proposal was a legitimate issue for an international finding; Jey's proposal about legalizing recreational drugs in all member states is not. Nations have every right to affect internal policies in their borders (that's, uhhh, the whole point of the game; the simple, Gameplay aspect of it, that is), but they don't necessarily have the right to take actions which may directly affect another nation (again, the drug trafficking vs. national drug policy thingy).

... (The exception of course is where I bully around HOCEK for fun. Violate my sovereignty all you want, but don't take away my fun, dammit.)

For example [ignoring your grumbling at this word], you like PostSecret, and while I have no problems with Post Secret, I love the All-American Rejects more, and the video in which the PostSecret postcards are prominently displayed. If you were to declare National PostSecret Day in Golgothastan and require all residents to log on to the PostSecret blog on that day, and I were to declare We Love the All-American Rejects Week in my nation and require all Kennyites to attend at least one AAR concert during that week, it would be our respective rights as leaders of sovereign nations to do so. But if I were to scramble the international networks so that your peeps could not log on to PostSecret, or you were to detain indefinitely the All-American Rejects at one of your airports, and refuse to allow them to traverse to the Federal Republic to celebrate WLAARW, that would be ... erm. ... Not making sense to you? Not making sense to me either. Clearly this example is too complex for my feeble little brain. I'll try using fruit instead.

So, I have three apples and you have three apples. If you decide to keep your apples, and I decide to throw mine away, even though by throwing them away I'm just wasting them, and you're pretty hungry and could really go for another apple right about now, that would be a "national" issue. But if you were to accuse me of poisoning your apples, and I were to respond by saying of course I didn't poison your apples, don't be ridiculous, but you insist that I must have poisoned them apples, and cite as evidence the fact that I am sporting a jet-black witches' robe and matching pointed hat, my nose is huge and green and bearing multiple warts, and I'm wielding an old-fashioned broom, and a vial of apple poison, and I say I'm only holding the vial 'cause I just came from chemistry class, and I must have walked off with the vial without realizing it, I'm only carrying the broom 'cause I'm late for a Quidditch lesson, I'm only wearing the coat and hat 'cause I had nothing else to wear save last year's Halloween costume, and my nose is only big and green and full of warts 'cause I'm just ugly, that's all, and stop making fun of me, but you don't buy it and petition Hack to nuke my nation for poisoning your apples, but I just emit a shrieking cackle, hop on my broom and fly off into the night, that would be ... no, that's not working either. I'll try cute little stuffed animals instead.

If Johnny has four cute little stuffed animals and Mary Sue has six, and Johnny decides to tear the heads off all his, that would be a "national" issue. But if Mary Sue were to disagree with Johnny's actions and express her disagreement by stabbing Johnny with a fish fork ... ahhh, fish forks ... a surprisingly efficient weapon ... of course, I rarely have the chance to use 'em, y'know, 'cause I really hate fish ... I mean, sometimes the breading on fried fish is good, and I can sometimes go for a processed fish stick or two ... but two's as far as I'll go ... y'know, 'cause the processing takes out a lot of that awful fish flavor, but not all of it ... and uhhh, besides, my religion bans eating most seafood anyway ... of course, it bans breaking the Sabbath too, and technically it was still the Sabbath when I started posting here today ... so clearly I'm a sinner ... uhhh, and I like pork, too ... and ... uhhh ...

I gotta go lie down.

Thank you very much for that explanation. Believe it or not, it did actually clear things up a lot - sorry I didn't catch on quicker. With that in mind, I think I understand your logic in - as in the initial example - saying abortion is a domestic issue. However, I find myself disagreeing on the role of the UN. Firstly, I think it can act to protect what are by your measurement "domestically determined" rights. And I think it should do so - where it can do so effectively (which is not in every case). Secondly, I do think some indirect aspects of domestic policy effects - I go back to my examples of the sex trade, or of the role of distorting forces in global trade - should be dealt with.

But, I don't imagine my views will change yours, or yours mine - thank you, though, for having the patience to explain them to me. I think I shall retire from this topic now.

Jack Weisgaarden
Former UN Ambassador for the Democratic Republic of Golgothastan

"Don't run away.
I'll change your mind."

*Wanders aimlessly into the thread. Takes a swig of Rebel Yell. Lights a cigarette. Sways. Almost, but not quite, falls over. Wanders aimlessly out.*

Ug, how about in Nation A they grow apples. Nation B doesn't like apples.
Nation B decides to produce legislation that says A can't grow apples. A quite rightly ignores it, as it is ineffective. It is also an International issue.
Nation B changes tactics and bans the movement of apples within B. This is a National issue. It has international implications as A cannot export apples to B.
Nation A goes to higher free trade organisation, Big G, which both A & B are part of. Big G passes legislation that says the prohibition of movement of goods if it has a cross-border element is illegal. This is international.

[Awaits the usual Hirotan lecture. :p]

touché :)

You only need to 'believe' you are morally superior to cause issues, you only need to meet your mother in law to realise you haven't got half the superiority problem you thought you had.