NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone ever proposed a resolution which actually defines national sovereignty -- at least for the purposes of UN legislation? It seems to me that since this is a large bone of contention with regard to many proposals, a definition might be in order...if it's possible for everyone to agree on one.

Example:

I just used the argument in the "Repeal Legalize Euthanasia" thread that legalization doesn't interfere with national sovereignty because it merely permits laws to exist rather than creating the laws themselves. This is why I had problems with the recent Abortion resolution -- too much micromanagement. Seems to me that national sovereignty takes over in a legalization case because the individual states must pass their own laws. All a UN resolution should do in this case is make it illegal for a law that goes through the nation's due legislative process and passes to be unilaterally struck down. In short, in governments where the will of the people is how laws are generated and passed, no state shall disallow them.

Legalization doesn't force a state to adopt laws that it and its citizenry find unappealing or culturally anathematic.

Ideas? Refutations? Flames diguised as arguments (just in case...)?

I would think any resolution defining NatSov would be illegal since it's already been defined in the rules how the arguement can be used.

I would think any resolution defining NatSov would be illegal since it's already been defined in the rules how the arguement can be used.
Has it? Which rules? The ones on proposals?

If that's the case, why is there always ferocious argument between NatSovvers and Unilateralists (or whatever the other side is calling themselves, if anything)?

The biggest problem with your idea for a resolution defining NatSov is the difficulty in creating one legal definition that will satisfy all without violating the bans on amendments. Beyond that, what category would this fit?

Has it? Which rules? The ones on proposals?

If that's the case, why is there always ferocious argument between NatSovvers and Unilateralists (or whatever the other side is calling themselves, if anything)?
Well it's been defined that NatSov can't be used as the sole arguement for repeals. It hasn't been strictly defined in all scenarios but that leads me to believe the definition is more in the hands of the rules. Seems like game mechanics tinkering in a sense. Or at least trying to draft a resolution which would dictate rules on the use of NatSov in further resolutions. Doesn't seem like a territory that is legal to touch on to me.

The arguement between NatSov and IntFed is an ideological one and I don't think you're going to be solving it today ;)

If that's the case, why is there always ferocious argument between NatSovvers and Unilateralists (or whatever the other side is calling themselves, if anything)?Take your pick from International Federalists, Personal Soverignists, and a few I'm sure are not suitable for a forum with children. :p

On the other hand, one could conceivably create a resolution defining the rights of nations, and therefore implicitly define NatSov. That could be covered, however, by Res. 49 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States)...

Problem being with 49 and nat sov is that it recognises the supremacy of international law.

Well it's been defined that NatSov can't be used as the sole arguement for repeals. It hasn't been strictly defined in all scenarios but that leads me to believe the definition is more in the hands of the rules. Seems like game mechanics tinkering in a sense. Or at least trying to draft a resolution which would dictate rules on the use of NatSov in further resolutions. Doesn't seem like a territory that is legal to touch on to me.

I disagree and reject that universalist logic. NatSov has been explicity forbidden from being used as a SOLE argument in the cases of repeals ONLY (per Violations-->Repeals-->paragraph 2 in the Proposal Rules sticky). Being cited as invalid for one particular kind of resolution neither defines NatSov nor leads me to believe that it is "more in the hands of the rules". If we must define all the terms we use, why not NatSov?

The arguement between NatSov and IntFed is an ideological one and I don't think you're going to be solving it today ;)
I don't aim to solve it. I am trying to assess views in order to POSSIBLY attempt a definition. Of course, the biggest issue is what category would a NatSov resolution fall into, if any?

Again, no proposal here, and likely none to come, but I'd like to know how folks define this concept and PERHAPS attempt to help solidify the debate a little.

You will at some stage be pointed to this --> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907

Take your pick from International Federalists, Personal Soverignists, and a few I'm sure are not suitable for a forum with children. :p
Ah...I've read a few that fall into your last category. I've also heard "Individual Sovereignty" or "IndSov".

On the other hand, one could conceivably create a resolution defining the rights of nations, and therefore implicitly define NatSov. That could be covered, however, by Res. 49 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States)...
I was sent to NSWiki -- is that an HTML version of an actual resolution? Please forgive my ignorance.

Ah...I've read a few that fall into your last category. I've also heard "Individual Sovereignty" or "IndSov".Yeah I created those, but I got flak from a few people complaining it was not an inaccurate meaning. Reason I used them was to draw parallels to natsov (because they can be the same thing, with variation of scale).I was sent to NSWiki -- is that an HTML version of an actual resolution? Please forgive my ignorance.Yeah the resolution is in there.

You will at some stage be pointed to this --> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907

Or this...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4

I disagree and reject that universalist logic. NatSov has been explicity forbidden from being used as a SOLE argument in the cases of repeals ONLY (per Violations-->Repeals-->paragraph 2 in the Proposal Rules sticky). Being cited as invalid for one particular kind of resolution neither defines NatSov nor leads me to believe that it is "more in the hands of the rules". If we must define all the terms we use, why not NatSov?
Well defining it can in essence also define where it's used... which is not something for us to decide. This is all I'm saying. I think a definition could possibly exist in a resolution but it's a thin line you're walking at the least. I'll leave it to the mods to decide legality. I'm simply suggesting a possible barrier.
I don't aim to solve it. I am trying to assess views in order to POSSIBLY attempt a definition. Of course, the biggest issue is what category would a NatSov resolution fall into, if any?
That was simply a jest on my part. It's not a definition of sovereignity that divides IntFeds and NatSovers I don't think. Just a disagreement on the degree of NatSov that should be preserved/respected by the UN. Any attempt to define THAT would be game mechanics imo.

You will at some stage be pointed to this --> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907
And thank you for doing so. A very interesting read, that. Just about does the defining job altogether.

On the other hand, one could conceivably create a resolution defining the rights of nations, and therefore implicitly define NatSov. That could be covered, however, by Res. 49 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States)...

On Sovereignty

Originally Posted by A Regional Delegate

Sorry, but I'm opposed to national sovereignty proposals. They would take a lot of fun and intrigue out of the UN, whose purpose is precisely to be a game of national sovereignty limitations, if passed.

I appreciate your statement, and understand fully if you chose to not support it. Still, as a United Nations Regional Delegate, I'd still like your approval so that the rest of your Region (and others) could have the opportunity to vote. I've taken the position that I'll approve well-written proposals even if I personally oppose them, as the approval process isn't voting on the merits of the bill, but rather of the merits of *debating* the bill.

I'd like to think that I left plenty of room for precisely the sorts of intrigues that make NS fun, primarily in Articles 2, 3, and 10. While this is an adaptation of a document from the RL UN, I tried very hard to leave it open-ended. The statements on War provide ample opportunity for role-play scenarios, and "The Role of the United Nations" section makes it quite clear that the rules of the UN do indeed apply to all members. This is nothing new - the NationStates UN has a mandatory effect on its member nations.

This really isn't a National Sovereignty proposal, even though at first glance it might appear to be one. It's my opinion that this proposal isn't adding anything inhibiting to the world of NationStates. It is designed to state in clear and unambiguous language where the roles of the State and the Role of the UN intertwine. It's my hope that when passed it can be used as a cornerstone for other nations to build new proposals upon. It's also my hope that you'll help me in this quest.

Quote

Article 1 says nobody can dictate my form of government, but that last resolution changed me from an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy to a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. That's Sovereignty manipulation by the UN!
Nope. It changed your government description. Your government is what YOU define it as. Frisbeeteria shows up as a Left-Leaning College State, but we're actually a Corporate Oligarchy with strong libertarian values. We just look like a college state from the outside.

Quote

What are those legal powers anyway. You never bothered to define them, now did you?
Nope. That's your job. It's your country, you decide what's legal. Of course you're also bound by Articles 2, 3, 10, and 11, which clearly say what you're not allowed to legislate, plus you may have treaty obligations that came from outside the UN. The UN doesn't care about those outside obligations, but your treaty partners might. I'd advise not legislating yourself into a corner there.
Aha. Thank you.

Well defining it can in essence also define where it's used... which is not something for us to decide. This is all I'm saying. I think a definition could possibly exist in a resolution but it's a thin line you're walking at the least. I'll leave it to the mods to decide legality. I'm simply suggesting a possible barrier.

That was simply a jest on my part. It's not a definition of sovereignity that divides IntFeds and NatSovers I don't think. Just a disagreement on the degree of NatSov that should be preserved/respected by the UN. Any attempt to define THAT would be game mechanics imo.
Okay, now I get it. Thanks.

What I'm getting is that whole issue of National Sovereignty is not about how the term is being defined, but how UN proposals affect it. National Sovereignty, then, is the fulcrum upon which the debate over many resolutions (if not all of them) balances (teeters?). The obvious parallel is "states' rights" in the RLUSA.

The most extreme defender of National Soverignty will oppose ANY resolution, because they take away their nations level of control on such a matter.

Then you have those who will support resolutions which are international in nature as they feel that is what the UN should do. They oppose legislation which is national in nature.

Then you start getting towards those who feel that there are some matters more fundamental than national considerations, things that should affect ALL of humanity. They support international legislation, but tend to be reluctant to micromanage member states.

Then finally you have the most opposite of the most extreme defender of Nat Sov - they feel that the UN can legislate on anything, national soverignty is not a consideration and anything a nation can legislate on is fair game for the UN.

Most people will sit somewhere in the middle.

Then you start getting towards those who feel that there are some matters more fundamental than national considerations, things that should affect ALL of humanity. They support international legislation, but tend to be reluctant to micromanage member states.
Ecopoeia, for instance. Cheers - I've been looking for a good definition.

Ecopoeia, for instance. Cheers - I've been looking for a good definition.

I'd have to include myself in that section as well. :D

Hopefully I didn't say anything that offends anyone else :)

I started mentally drafting a proposal where certain contentious issues were listed as issues to be decided by states under the banner 'for the protection of National Sovereignty' but it's so far not past a mentioning stage...I've been pretty brain dead.

I started mentally drafting a proposal where certain contentious issues were listed as issues to be decided by states under the banner 'for the protection of National Sovereignty' but it's so far not past a mentioning stage...I've been pretty brain dead.
I would be very interested in such a resolution.

As would I

And as too would I...

Very very very draft then...and I'd need someone to propose it:

For the Protection of National Sovereignty

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy (?)
Strength: Strong.

1) Noting the positive reception to Resolution No. #147: Abortion Legality Convention which protects a nation's right to decide whether to allow abortion, and if so, to determine when.

2) A proposal to protect said right on other contentious and/or fundamentally domestic policy.

3) Noting that many domestic issues have an international aspect, which could affect other United Nations resolutions.

4) Respecting the fact that the list found in s.6.2 (B) is exhaustive, but the number of issues which should and/or are decided by individual states is not, and those which come under the open rules found in s.6.2 (A) are subject to change.

5.1) A nation's government is its chief legislator, and as such makes fundamental decisions for its people.
5.2) The United Nations (henceforth the 'UN') is an international body whose decisions overrule those of a single constituent nation.

6.1) The UN is often used to protect fundamental human rights, many of which are agreed upon by the majority. However, some issues have too many positive and negative aspects for a consensus to be made that would satisfy a qualitative majority as opposed to a simple majority. It would be fairer for a smaller, more representative body to decide, whether it is the nation's main goverment or at a more devolved level.

6.2)
A) The UN has many constituent nations which have their own culture and religious, political and moral beliefs. The UN should not interfere with the nation's people's right to hold harmless cultural practices or public holidays.
Therefore a nation may have the right to permit or forbid a practice which conflicts with public morality, cultural heritage or public policy unless it is expressly forbidden or permitted under UN law.

B) However, the issues listed below may not be decided by a UN resolution while this resolution remains in effect:
i) The State Religion - excluding access to other religious beliefs
ii) The Budget - subject to Human Rights legislation
iii) Immigration - subject to Human Rights legislation
iv) Public/Private Health Service - excluding limited Accident & Emergency care
v) Police or Military Armament - subject to legislation on permitted weaponry.

________________________________________________________________

First time I've drafted a serious one for a long long time.
Possible inclusion of euthanasia if the repeal passes.
Any other issues for adding?
Big critism and rewriting is absolutely fine.

Very very very draft then...and I'd need someone to propose it:

For the Protection of National Sovereignty

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy (?)
Strength: Strong.

*snip*


So this pre-proposal is essentially a "what we agree not to legislate in the UN" idea? I like it. Not all nations would agree on a complete list of "third rail" topics, but I'd bet most nations -- enough to reach quorum and pass a vote -- would agree on four or five.

I have the required number of endorsements and would gladly submit it for you.

Looks sensible to me. Wyldtree would support it.

I'm worried it might cut across any of the proposal rules.

I'm worried it might cut across any of the proposal rules.
Yeah that's a legitimate concern. Would have to really research all past resolutions for that. So much as one resolution on health, immigration, etc that contradicted your outline would make it illegal. I'm not aware of any illegal contadiction offhand but there are a lot of resolutions on the books and I could very well be missing one.

In particular the Police & Military one...I might cut that.

In particular the Police & Military one...I might cut that.
I think you're pretty well covered on that one since you did exclude legislation on the legality of types of weapons.

Um... as written, this looks like a big ole' violation of the whole "No forbidding what the UN can and can't do."

Well there is precedent with the ALC, as refered to in the text. I don't see how this is really any different other than being more widespread.

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

All this is doing is the same on other issues.

No, I'm sorry, but that's not accurate, my friend. The ALC extended a right to nations. It didn't expressly prohibit the UN from doing anything. This proposal, however, does:

However, the issues listed below may not be decided by a UN resolution while this resolution remains in effect:
i) The State Religion - excluding access to other religious beliefs
ii) The Budget - subject to Human Rights legislation
iii) Immigration - subject to Human Rights legislation
iv) Public/Private Health Service - excluding limited Accident & Emergency care
v) Police or Military Armament - subject to legislation on permitted weaponry.

That's what I was afraid of...
Is there anyway of rewording it so it remains within the rules?

Tough to say really, but my best advice would be to follow the form of the operative clause from the ALC:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

In other words, "1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare ________ legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting _________;" could be used, filling in the blank as appropriate to each issue you'd like to cover.

That said, however, I don't think a broad proposal like this is likely to pass (OOC: even if the mods deem it legal). You would probably be better off tackling one issue at a time.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

See? I can be helpful once in a while.

See, this is why I like to start a discussion before submitting any proposals -- but are there any newbies here to learn the give and take of ideas within this forum? Prolly not.

As usual, Cluichistan, you make a valid and strong point. This thread went from floating the notion of defining national sovereignty to a pre-pre-draft of a proposal to effectively limit the UN's power. The latest idea of drafting "conventions" for each controversial (abortion-type) issue using the ALC's first article seems to me to be the best one. I agree that any more than one at a time would be too cumbersome for a single proposal and would likely fail or be deemed illegal. Let the debate continue, and thanks for all of your contributons.

Jubal Harshaw
Magister Intangelon
UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

As usual, Cluichistan, you make a valid and strong point.

OOC: I am capable of that from time to time. ;)

No, I'm sorry, but that's not accurate, my friend. The ALC extended a right to nations. It didn't expressly prohibit the UN from doing anything. This proposal, however, does:
Prohibiting the UN from deciding on an issue and saying it's for the states to decide is the same thing worded in a different manner... Either the UN decides it or the states do. Either way as long as the resolution is up an issue or issues can't be decided until said resolution is repealed. If a wording change is what it needs, so be it, but it seems like splitting hairs.

At any rate, if Randomea is interested in breaking this down into individual resolutions than I'd certainly be on board.

Hmm...as far as I can see there's two routes then.
a)
Cutting out the named list, make it weak, and elaborate further on s6.2 A so it includes many of the elements of the list, but including the provision that any express resolution will overrule an issue.

Or b)
Choosing the important ones and making individual proposals.

A combination of the two would work, having the first as a general catch all and the second to eleaborate exactly.