NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples".

However, this resolution FEARS that tthe Resolution for Indigenous Peoples is only a first step in indigenous rights and that the last step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" are "indigenous peoples" has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state, and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

(1) This resolution urges that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that have been recognized above or in "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders.

(2) This does not mean that with self-government there will be independent states of indigenous people, but the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, politics, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights will be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice.

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution OBLIGATES negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members, where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government, or even about cases of discrimination without facing any 'retalitory' reactions from their U.N member states.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure to NGOs, in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples".

However, this resolution FEARS that tthe Resolution for Indigenous Peoples is only a first step in indigenous rights and that the last step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

Fears is probably not the word you want to use here.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" are "indigenous peoples" has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state, and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

very wordy and cumbersome. You could simplify by using the definition as given by Hirota in Rights Of Indigenous People.

(1) This resolution urges that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that have been recognized above or in "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders.

Why?

(2) This does not mean that with self-government there will be independent states of indigenous people, but the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

It should be explained what the "Nation within a Nation" theory is.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, politics, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights will be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice.

Why would we want to do this?

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution OBLIGATES negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

Same as above. Why?

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members,

UN committees are staffed by the UN Gnomes. Members cannot be assigned to dit on these committees.

where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government, or even about cases of discrimination without facing any 'retalitory' reactions from their U.N member states.

Instead of another committee, this could probably be covered with an RP group, possibly with their own forum to use for such discussion.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure to NGOs, in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

I'm not certain, myself that Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs to be built upon. Nice enough idea, though. With some work it could even gain a following of support. The major issue that you would need to clear up is, as I mentioned, WHY? There needs to be some justification for granting self government to the indigenous when we don't generally grant self government to anyone else. RoIP guaranteed that they would be treated equally. This is suggesting that we grant them preferential treatment. That's just my two cents...

Thank you for your recommendations. I will take them into account as I advise this so it hopefully gets people's backing. I have also P.M Hirota to see if that nation's diplomat to the U.N can help me with this self government proposal.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples".

This resolution BELIEVES that theResolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" is only a first step in the indigenous rights process and the next step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" would be the cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, that inhabit a region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

(1) This resolution urges that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that have been recognized above or in "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders so that Indigenous peoples can feel their voices are heard because they would have their 'indigenous' leaders as the people they can talk to about complaints or demands for their regions.

(2) Self government will not result in independent states of indigenous people, because this will result in the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means; when a nation in all send of the word is given autonomy diferent to a province or a state, but has less autonomy then an independent nation. Therefore, with negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states they reside in, they will be on the same playing field. But apart of that said nation.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, politics, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights will be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice. With this creation of an Indigenous self-governance system, they will be able to pay for schools, churches, and other social services through the use of resource rights allocated to them through negotiations

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution OBLIGATES negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members, where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government, or even about cases of discrimination without facing any 'retalitory' reactions from their U.N member states.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure to NGOs, in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

Third Draft:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples".

This resolution BELIEVES that the Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" is only a first step in the indigenous rights process and the next step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" would be the cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, that inhabit a region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

(1) This resolution INSISTS that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that were recognized in the resolution of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government so that Indigenous peoples can be enfranchised into U.N member states by feeling their voices are heard because their leaders would be able to express their complaints or demands to the government.

(2) Self government will not result in independent states of indigenous people, because this will result in the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states will result on an equal playing field between indigenous people and U.N member states.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution OBLIGATES negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members is where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure to NGOs, in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

Not to be a pain, but this is your 5th or so proposal in three days. I would like to welcome you to the UN, but you really don't need to constantly draft resolutions to enjoy your new status. We of Al Thera know how tempting it can be to want to see your name forever attached to a piece of passed legislature, but perhaps you might want to address the other proposals that are being brought up and start to make allies with your UN neighbors before giving my office more paperwork to deal with.

On the topic at had:

Why do these people need to be protected by the UN? Not to sound rude, but if this legislation passes an war that takes place would mean that any siezed lands would be bound by UN laws to allow those native people to create their own form of government.

I don't want to say this is a NatSov issue, but clearly it is.

Third Draft:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples".

<Cheers>

This resolution BELIEVES that the Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" is only a first step in the indigenous rights process and the next step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

Not enormously sure about this clause, but fair enough.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" would be the cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, that inhabit a region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

Conditional agreement, unless someone can provide a better definition.

(1) This resolution INSISTS that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that were recognized in the resolution of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government so that Indigenous peoples can be enfranchised into U.N member states by feeling their voices are heard because their leaders would be able to express their complaints or demands to the government.

First (puts on Grammar Nazi cap) "begin to immediately begin negotations" seems something of a tautology.

Secondly, shouldn't it be persuant to international or national recognition of the ethinc/cultural group being recognised as distinct and indeed eligible for negotations to begin. Otherwise anyone it seems could demand the right to negotiate for their "rights".

(2) Self government will not result in independent states of indigenous people, because this will result in the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Interesting.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states will result on an equal playing field between indigenous people and U.N member states.

Ok, already the case in Compadria.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.

The comment about "indigenous school systems, political systems, economics,..." worries me. This could lead to two-tier systems in these areas and thorougly disrupt national policy on these issues. Additionally, some of the planned policies might result in retrograde or sub-standard education, political governance, economics, etc, for the indigenous peoples.

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

Hell no, our resource rights our national, not local.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution OBLIGATES negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

You've lost me in support terms with this.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

Ah, restored my support.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members is where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government.

Agreed.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure to NGOs, in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

Not sure why this needs to be NGO or IIC linked, it could be done within the context of a national health policy surely?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Thanks for the PM, I'll try and contribute to this proposal:

Third Draft:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)Looks fair enough.

This Resolution RECOGNIZES the great work that was done by the U.N member Hirota on the resolution of "Rights for Indigenous peoples". Thanks for the recognition, but it's not neccessary. If I do enough to warrant it, just add co-authored by Hirota on the end of the proposal (or anyone else, of course). For the time being, rewrite this to something like:

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous peoples.

It saves space (as there is the character limit to think about).

This resolution BELIEVES that the Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" is only a first step in the indigenous rights process and the next step should result in Indigenous Self Government.

I'd put something like:

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of indigenous peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" would be the cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, that inhabit a region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state. Not sure if this is better than the definition I used, but consider using my definition simply to save space and maintain consistency.

I'll have a look at the remainder in due course.

Indigenous Ariddians already have self-government (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_government_and_judiciary#Wymgani_self-government) to a significant extent, and our head of State (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aj_Ud) is an Indigenous person. Still, we applaud the intent of this resolution.

It urges self-government but does not mandate it in situations where Indigenous people themselves do not want it, which is good; the resolution is adaptable to different national situations. My only point of concern is this:


First this Resolution RECOGNIZES that "Indigenous Peoples" would be the cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, that inhabit a region either; before its subsequent colonization or annexation; and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

The resolution essentially gives a definition of Indigenous peoples, which may conflict with existing definitions in each nation.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The resolution essentially gives a definition of Indigenous peoples, which may conflict with existing definitions in each nation.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRAThere is already a definition presented by a previous resolution, my previous resolution. :)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous peoples.

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of indigenous peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

This resolution recognizes the criteria stated in the U.N Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" as the criteria to establish for Indigenous peoples.

(1) This resolution INSISTS that U.N member states begin to IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples that were recognized in the resolution of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government so that Indigenous peoples can be enfranchised into U.N member states by feeling their voices are heard because their leaders would be able to express their complaints or demands to the government.

(2) Self government will not result in independent states of indigenous people, because this will result in the practice of a "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states will result on an equal playing field between indigenous people and U.N member states.

(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice if that is what Indigenous communities in U.N member states insist upon. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members is where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure on National Health Policies and Ministries in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

-------------

I have revised a few things that have been suggested from everyone. I know this is not the final draft because I want to hopefully get everyone's approval on this. Therefore please read this document carefully and please if you have any other suggestions or articles that could cut down the wordiness. That would be great.

To Al Thera U.N diplomat

Thank you for notifying me, however I am not trying to just get my name on the resolution things. I looked at issues that I thought should be in U.N resolutions to help NSUN members and for my first two or three U.N resolutions, there was already a resolution in effect or it wouldn't be applicable. However with this resolution I believe I can get into the singular aspects of the Resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" to help Indigenous people of self-government.

My only real concern, at this point, lies in the question...

"Why should we grant self government to the indigenous people?"

We hold nothing against them, nor do we wish to remove their equality. Their rights are guaranteed and they should be free from discrimination. Granting them self-government, even on the "nation within a nation" level seems like preferential treatment. It allows them a voice in government that no other minority group is granted.

Thank you for your concern. And I understand your reasoning about why should one group get what appears to be preferential treatment.

What this resolution is trying to do is for Indigenous peoples, having a friendly face like a chief who works for the government and presents their issues to the National government would be better for them then having some stony faced diplomat from far away who might not understand all about Indigenous life.

Thank you for your concern. And I understand your reasoning about why should one group get what appears to be preferential treatment.

What this resolution is trying to do is for Indigenous peoples, having a friendly face like a chief who works for the government and presents their issues to the National government would be better for them then having some stony faced diplomat from far away who might not understand all about Indigenous life.


Alright. I think I understand where you're coming from. Not a bad idea, but it raises a new concern for me. This representation for the indigenous could possibly work in some form of democratic or representative system, but it is somewhat unbalancing for those of us who are running government systems that have little to no representation for the people at all for any group. Kivisto is a dictatorship. The regular citizens get no say or representation within the government. Leads me back to the same question - why should I grant such rights to these people when nobody else gets it?

It doesn't mean just democratic governments at all. I feel. All governments from any variety can have indigenous governments that could be used as a mouthpiece to help indigenous people support the governments. It just doesn't mean a democratic government.

If you were to put in something about the indigenous government having the same basic government style as the nation (i.e. democratic, dictatorial, etc.) or if you were to just make all these new governments democratic (remember, even the Nazis allowed Jews to elect a puppet government, so I highly doubt there will be any real debate here), then you'd be well on your way to gaining my support.

You also need to clean up article 2 a lot (maybe even get rid of "Nation Within a Nation" and just describe what it is) and arrange the proposal into parts like:

The UN, RECOGNIZING

1)

2)

etc.

hereby MANDATES

1)

2)

etc.

and ENCOURAGES

1)

2)

etc.

This resolution's a bit of an eyesore right now.

This might be a House of Cards violation. It relies on a previous resolution for a definition. Not sure about that though, because even if the old resolution is repealed, the definition would still exist.

I don't like this proposal because it doesn't seem to take into account different types of indigineous peoples. I'll have more comments later.

I won't even debate the merits of this proposal right now, but this isn't what I'd call a House of Cards violation. It only uses one resolution as a reference to be built off of. Still, an administrator could probably take a look.

The defintion might not be recognized officially if the original is repealed, but that doesn't mean it stops existing.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous peoples.

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of indigenous peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

This resolution recognizes the criteria stated in the U.N Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" as the criteria to establish for Indigenous peoples.

This resolution Insists that:

(1) U.N member states IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples recognized in resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government, so enfranchisement into U.N member states by Indigenous people can occur where their feelings and complaints can be addressed.

(2) Self government will use the pracice of the "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states will result on an equal playing field between indigenous people and U.N member states.



(3) With the creation of a Self-Government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice if that is what Indigenous communities in U.N member states insist upon. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.

(4) With self-government the start of negotiations should be conducted to discuss resource rights with Indigenous communities that U.N member states now reside in.

(A) In the first stage; between 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between Indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights.

(B) Stage two; between years 5-10 there will be significant progress made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states.

(C) Stage three; Between year 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, report to the International Indigenous council

(D) Resource rights for Indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state.

(5) The creation of an International organzation, called the International Indigenous Council, chaired by 5 U.N members is where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as progress towards self government.

(A) This International Indigenous Council will also assist with notifying and applying pressure on National Health Policies and Ministries in case of contagious diseases that might break out in Indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and hopefully it will be passed.

Recommended changes:

-Change "Insists" to "MANDATES" before the articles of the resolution.

-Either capitalize "indigenous" wherever it appears or leave it all lower-case (not 50/50). The International Indigenous Council is obviously an exception, as are other works and bodies you refer to.

-Don't use the term "equal playing field" as it is a manner of speech.

-Get rid of the irregular spacing after article 2's end.

-Don't capitalize "Self-Government".

-With article 4, just make it something like:

"(4) Resource rights negotiations should begin between national governments and their indigenous self-governments upon their establishment. In the first 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights. In years 5-10 significant progress should be made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states. In years 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, they are to be reported to the International Indigenous Council. Resource rights for indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state according to the discretion of the International Indigenous Council and in accordance with the nation in question's economic systems."

- For article 5, I'd recommend:

"(5) The creation of an international organzation, called the International Indigenous Council (IIC), where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as their progress towards self government. Other relevant issues such as education, healthcare, technology, economic empowerment and agriculture may also be discussed under the aegis of the IIC. The IIC shall also make recommendations to nations on issues related to indigenous communities."

-Take out "and hopefully it will be passed" as this is utterly unnecessary and actually a little silly.

When you update the drafts for the proposal, you can simply click edit/delete and change the text instead of re-pasting the whole thing like, 5 times.

Hope this helps!

(1) U.N member states IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with indigenous peoples recognized in resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government, so enfranchisement into U.N member states by Indigenous people can occur where their feelings and complaints can be addressed.

I still have lingering issues with this. These are rights that are not necesarily granted to anyone else within Kivisto. Why should we grant them to this group?

Everyone has self-government. It may not be democratic, but it is their own national government. Unless, of course, there's anarchy, in which case no one will enforce this anyways. Since when did anarchists join the UN?

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous Peoples.

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of Indigenous Peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

This resolution recognizes the criteria stated in the U.N Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" as the criteria to establish for Indigenous Peoples.

This resolution Insists that:

(1) U.N member states IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with Indigenous Peoples recognized in resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous Peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government, so enfranchisement into U.N member states by Indigenous People can occur where their feelings and complaints can be addressed.

(2) Self government will use the pracice of the "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states can result in good relations between Indigenous People and U.N member states.

(3) Self-government can occur within any governmental system and doesn't necessarily have to be democratic. It is up the U.N member state to choose what kind of self-government Indigenous communities should be granted (dictatorship, democracy, etc.) Indigenous self government will be run by Indigenous People of their choice (chief or elder for example).

(4) With the creation of a self-government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice if that is what Indigenous communities in U.N member states insist upon. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.

(5) The creation of an international organzation, called the International Indigenous Council (IIC), where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as their progress towards self government. Other relevant issues such as education, healthcare, technology, economic empowerment and agriculture may also be discussed under the aegis of the IIC. The IIC shall also make recommendations to nations on issues related to indigenous communities

(6) Resource rights negotiations should begin between national governments and their indigenous self-governments upon their establishment. In the first 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights. In years 5-10 significant progress should be made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states. In years 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, they are to be reported to the International Indigenous Council. Resource rights for indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state according to the discretion of the International Indigenous Council and in accordance with the nation in question's economic systems.


In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples".

I have added an article three that hopefully deals with your concerns.

Remove socialist; it is an economic system, not a political one.

Move the article on the IIC up higher, as it is referred to before even being created.

Other than that, much better!

One more thing: make it clear that indigenous self-governments are to be led by indigenous peoples.

Changes made.

Oh, Otterby, would you kill me again please?

What's wrong?

This is a guaranteed way for an indigenous group to self-destruct. The nation within a nation ideal although it sounds good creates incredible problems. Lesotho is a wonderful example of this. These nations tend to be bordered inside the larger nation, creating a land locked nation within a nation with no resources. Furthermore, the outside nation surrounding them tends to dictate the economics of the internal nation by providing aid instead of technical devlelopment creating a cycle of impoverishment destroying and degrading the indigenous peoples inside them. This is worse than a bad idea. It is a self-limiting idea. The cost is tremendous and ultimately doesn't lead to a better life for many of the people inside these nations. A nation within a nation in many cases is a way to say live on a reservation... which in the technical sense would fit your description of a nation within a nation. You need to change this considerably before it is remotely viable.

OOC: First off I thought world issues weren't used for NSUN stuff.

Second, Lesotho is an independent nation. A nation within a nation theory would be a autonomous region or organization that is not an independent state it would be the same example as a province or a state within a real life Canada or America.

Any suggestions to better this document.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #89

Rights of indigenous peoples
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hirota

Description: Determined that the UN has a role to play in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in rights to all peoples, recognizing the rights of all peoples to be different, to be free from discrimination

Concerned indigenous peoples have been deprived of human rights & fundamental freedoms

Recognizing the need to respect & promote the rights of indigenous peoples, notably the rights to territories & resources, which stem from political, economic & social structures

Recognizing that indigenous peoples have the right to determine relationships with States in a spirit of coexistence & respect

Proclaims the following:

§1 Defines Indigenous peoples as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who now live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs & traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates the national, social & cultural characteristics of other segments of the majority population

§2 Indigenous peoples are free & equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, have the right to be free from discrimination

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such

§6 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall occur without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense

§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to protection & safety in times of conflict

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

§9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons

§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

§11 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of cultures, traditions & aspirations shown in education & public information

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

§13 States shall take effective steps, in discussion with indigenous peoples concerned, to give effect to this Resolution The existing resolution gives these Indigenous Peoples certain rights and protections but doesn't give them a right to self government independent of the national government of the nation they may reside in and take citizenship in. Thus we feel this in turn is now ammending the earlier resolution to add to what they got in it. Thus under rules that resolution (R89) must be repealed and a new proposal including any ammending actions submitted. Also several of the items given in this one are redundant to ones given in the earlier R89 and may to some extent extend them beyong the intent of the earlier one. Thus again more ammending of the original resolution.

Also we see some reason to repeal this R89 as it gives rights to indigenous some nonindigenous people may not have.

As in S3 it allows them to enter the national work force and encourages them to get involved in the national government. Thus one might consider the current proposal in that it wants to separate them now is opposing the intent of that section. Especialy this part of it while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

ooc: Just out of curiosity, I'm guessing this is based on the US system, but how does it compare to the Australian system?
Just wondering that's all...

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act (ISGA)
Drop the acronym in the title.

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous Peoples.

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of Indigenous Peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

This resolution recognizes the criteria stated in the U.N Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" as the criteria to establish for Indigenous Peoples.
Meh. Whatever.

This resolution Insists that:
Change insists to mandates.

(1) U.N member states IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with Indigenous Peoples recognized in resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous Peoples within their national borders. Negotiations should begin immediately for self-government, so enfranchisement into U.N member states by Indigenous People can occur where their feelings and complaints can be addressed.
Drop the second sentences as fluff and not doing anything: you already said they had to be immediately addressed: in fact, you even capitalized immediately so we knew exactly what you meant. :p

(2) Self government will use the pracice of the "Nation within a Nation" theory.

Nation in a Nation theory means that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states can result in good relations between Indigenous People and U.N member states.
I don't see why you mandate negotiations and then say pretty much what the negotiations have to say. Why don't you let the negotiators figure that out.

Suppose a nation doesn't have provinces or states? Or suppose a nation would rather just give indigenous peoples representation through the normal channels of government? Or suppose the indigenous peoples don't want to have this kind of set-up? I don't see why you want to restrict it to a single nation-within-nation thing.

(3) Self-government can occur within any governmental system and doesn't necessarily have to be democratic. It is up the U.N member state to choose what kind of self-government Indigenous communities should be granted (dictatorship, democracy, etc.) Indigenous self government will be run by Indigenous People of their choice (chief or elder for example).
Why don't the negotiators collectively figure that out?

(4) With the creation of a self-government system, indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be secured to work together to apply it in an indigenous practice thereby reviving traditional Indigenous practice if that is what Indigenous communities in U.N member states insist upon. It will also allow for self-government regions to pay for these services themselves by allocated resource rights.
The grammar in here is such that I can't figure out what you are trying to say. I think you are saying that indigenous peoples will be able to keep their traditional practices, no?

I don't feel comfortable with a different economic system within a nation. We don't want to have a crazy economic system going on in a technologically-backward government within our government.

(5) The creation of an international organzation, called the International Indigenous Council (IIC), where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as their progress towards self government. Other relevant issues such as education, healthcare, technology, economic empowerment and agriculture may also be discussed under the aegis of the IIC. The IIC shall also make recommendations to nations on issues related to indigenous communities
Fine.

(6) Resource rights negotiations should begin between national governments and their indigenous self-governments upon their establishment. In the first 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights. In years 5-10 significant progress should be made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states. In years 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, they are to be reported to the International Indigenous Council. Resource rights for indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state according to the discretion of the International Indigenous Council and in accordance with the nation in question's economic systems.
Wait, so this International Indigenous Council has authority? I thought it said it was just a group of indigenous groups who met to talk about stuff. I don't want a group of indigenous people to have the final say on indigenous people, which seems to be what's going on: what about the rest of the population?

In conclusion, this resolution will build on trust and reconciliation that was started with the resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples".
Drop it.

All in all, I think this needs a lot of work before I will support it; it doesn't respect the circumstances of individual nations very much and assumes one form of operation.

I am against this proposal.
It's not within the purview of the UN, first of all. National Sovereignty and all that rot...
However, and this is probably more to the point, it seems unlikely that every form of government is suited to having indigenous peoples govern themselves. Furthermore, one can argue that self-government can lead to undesirable problems within a particular society. Does self-government lead to a cohesive nation, in which every group seeks the benefit of the whole? Does it lead to racial tensions instead? What happens if a society is so integrated that natives no longer wish self-government? Should it be imposed on them? What should happen if the desires of the self-governed conflict with the rest of the nation? Who should win out?
I think I could easily come up with a few examples where native self-government has lead to some very bad things. It just so happens that there has been a protest going on about an hour from where I live. It's been going on since February. Millions of dollars has been lost in business. About a week and a half ago, a hydro tower was knocked over by the protesters and people were out of power for a few days. At this point, it's impossible to determine who is right, who is wrong and who should have their way. One thing is clear though; this is one possible result of a society within a society... total chaos.

I realize that this is not the most legalistic argument against your proposal. Still, I really think that you need to consider what you are asking for, before proposing any old thing.

--Rooty

I don't feel comfortable with a different economic system within a nation. We don't want to have a crazy economic system going on in a technologically-backward government within our government.

I suppose that this could cover cases where the land & mineral resources within a tribal reservation are owned collectively by the tribe as a whole, and apportioned by the tribal council, although the surrounding [dominant] culture favours indivdual ownership of land & resources instead [i](OOC: there's certainly RL precedent for that sort of policy...).

In Randomea there is no difference in the eyes of the law or the government between those born in Randomea from settlers, those born from those who lived in Randomea time out of mind and those who have recently settled. Culturely, perhaps, no-one can dictate how a person lives, although there is a massive language program, which not only teaches several Randomean dialects but has access to foreign languages too.
This is all in conformity of the RoIP Act #89.

To make them superior? Why? There was a time when Randomea had no humans on it's shores, should we give our pearly dragons a committee?

To live in a town or a tribe is a question of choice, is there a difference between a corporate heirarchy and a tribal? We believe not.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution: Indigenous Self-Government Act

RECOGNISING the efforts by the UN to promote rights of Indigenous Peoples.

AWARE of a need to continue the process of promoting rights of Indigenous Peoples and promote indigenous autonomy or self-government.

This resolution recognizes the criteria stated in the U.N Resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" as the criteria to establish for Indigenous Peoples.

This resolution Mandates that:

(1) U.N member states IMMEDIATELY begin negotiations with Indigenous Peoples recognized in resolution "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" on the aspect of self-government for Indigenous Peoples within their national borders.

(2) Self government can use the practice of the "Nation within a Nation" theory if both the national government and Indigenous Peoples want to use this theory. The definition of a Nation in a Nation theory is; that a indigenous self-government region would be given autonomy diferent to a province or a state in a U.N member state but will have less autonomy than an independent nation. Therefore, negotiations between Indigenous groups and U.N member states can result in good relations between Indigenous People and U.N member states.

(3) Self-government can occur within any governmental system and doesn't necessarily have to be democratic. It is up tp the negotiating teams between the U.N member states and Indigenous groups within their nation to choose what kind of self-government would be compatible to the Indigenous communities.

(4) With self-government indigenous school systems, political sysytems, economics, religion, and language as well as resource and international rights can be completed in traditional Indigenous practice if so agreed to by U.N member states and Indigenous Peoples. With the creation of self-government areas, the Indigenous government can pay for these political, economic and other sysytems through allocated resource rights.

(5) The creation of an international organzation, called the International Indigenous Council (IIC), where Indigenous groups from U.N member states can meet to discuss about issues within their member states as well as their progress towards self government. Other relevant issues such as education, healthcare, technology, economic empowerment and agriculture may also be discussed under the aegis of the IIC. The IIC shall also make recommendations to nations on issues related to indigenous communities

(6) Resource rights negotiations should begin between national governments and their indigenous self-governments upon their establishment. In the first 3-5 years, this resolution STRONGLY URGES that negotiations begin between indigenous communites and U.N member states with regards to resource rights. In years 5-10 significant progress should be made to solve resource rights issues between Indigenous communities and U.N member states. In years 10-15 a negotiated settlement should be reached between Indigenous peoples and U.N member states. If any problems occur, they are to be reported to the International Indigenous Council. Resource rights for indigenous communities can vary for each U.N member state according to the discretion of the International Indigenous Council and in accordance with the nation in question's economic systems.

Wait, so this International Indigenous Council has authority? I thought it said it was just a group of indigenous groups who met to talk about stuff. I don't want a group of indigenous people to have the final say on indigenous people, which seems to be what's going on: what about the rest of the population?

No, if there is problems is ongoing in negotiations at some point in time, either side can report to the Indigenous council and can ask this Council to suggest ways to get out of the deadlock.

ooc: Just out of curiosity, I'm guessing this is based on the US system, but how does it compare to the Australian system?
Just wondering that's all...

OOC: It is actually a hybrid of the Canadian/American system.

OOC: It is actually a hybrid of the Canadian/American system.

Yeah.
That is what I was figuring.
Your idea sounded very Canadian.
I am Canadian, and let me tell you, there are a million problems with our system. It's nothing short of a total disaster. Why would you want to duplicate it?

--Rooty

This is an interesting resolution. I think it needs a lot of work especially in terms of wording but all in all it's not all that bad. Since it is based on the Canada/US system it makes a lot of assumptions on the vertical nature of government (governments within governments as provinces/states within federal) which is not commonly shared with all national government models.

Clause 4 is probably the strongest thing going for the resolution. It's hard to come up with working models of self goverance but it's easy to come up with a requirement for the preservation of culture and language in education.

Self-Government has always been an odd thing, especially in the North Eastern portion of the US. It has given rise to the tribal casino industry and a whole bunch of angry New York officials who constantly try to find ways to keep citizens from buying cigarettes in tribal lands without having to pay the proper New York sales tax. (Currently there is a law that says you must report all sales through the internet and cigarette sales from tribal lands on your state income tax form so the state can get its proper share.)

As for My Traveling Harem's comment about why try to duplicate a total disaster, I would suggest that duplicating one is better than creating one out of whole cloth, which is what a number of resolutions that this body has recently voted for does. :p

Because Traveling Harem, it is a start on the indigenous progress. The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples was a very good step in the NSUN, and as a second step self-government should be created where it is negotiated.

But why should we grant the indigenous people self government?

Why in the world do so many of you distinguished diplomatic representatives have so much difficulty undersdtanding the concept of national sovereignty, and the fact that UN is supposed to act primarily as an INTER-state, nat an INTRA-state body.

Where does the UN find the authority to tell the United States od Realpolitika how it shall govern itself? Simply declaring that native self-government can take any form the UN member-state desires does not get around the national sovereignty issue. The UN has NO AUTHORITY to even consider proposals such as this one.

The last resolution, on Disabled Rights, was in my view a violation of the UN Charter position on state sovereignty, but at least there are some feeble arguments in defense of the position, well-stated by Tarmsden and a couple of others. But no sane person can claim that this proposal has any business even being tabled or discussed...it is blatantly illegal!

1)The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
7)Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2.1 and 2.7. The enforcement Measures of Chapter VII refer to the primacy of UNSC Resolutions declaring actions against non-compliant nations, so that a state may not claim sovereignty as a defence against sanctions.

Got it? Stay out of my internal affairs!

Why in the world do so many of you distinguished diplomatic representatives have so much difficulty undersdtanding the concept of national sovereignty, and the fact that UN is supposed to act primarily as an INTER-state, nat an INTRA-state body.

Where does the UN find the authority to tell the United States od Realpolitika how it shall govern itself? Simply declaring that native self-government can take any form the UN member-state desires does not get around the national sovereignty issue. The UN has NO AUTHORITY to even consider proposals such as this one.

Believe me when I say that I am one of the first to holler and get the Rhinos running when I feel that something the UN is doing is crossing the sovereignty line. That being said, the UN has whatever authority to legislate that we, the member states, grant it. If it is proposed that Jaywalking be punished by death and that proposal is passed into law, then the members of the UN have decreed that the UN had the authority to do it by passing the law.

I agree that many proposals cross the line into infringement upon National Sovereignty, but we can't scream that the UN doesn't have the authority. What should be cried is that we shouldn't allow it to have that kind of authority.

The last resolution, on Disabled Rights, was in my view a violation of the UN Charter position on state sovereignty,

I am unsure of which position stated in which Charter you are referring to.

but at least there are some feeble arguments in defense of the position, well-stated by Tarmsden and a couple of others. But no sane person can claim that this proposal has any business even being tabled or discussed...it is blatantly illegal!

See above. It isn't illegal. It may be undesirable to some, but not illegal.

UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2.1 and 2.7. The enforcement Measures of Chapter VII refer to the primacy of UNSC Resolutions declaring actions against non-compliant nations, so that a state may not claim sovereignty as a defence against sanctions.

Someone help me out here. Where the hell did this come from. I don't recognize this at all, nor am I familiar with The UN actually having a Charter or any other resolution that is sectioned into chapters.

OOC: RL=/=NS The NSUN doesn't have this bill in its repertoire. Sorry.

Got it? Stay out of my internal affairs!

Vote against. Argue against. Use the facts on the table. Railing against the unfairness of an international community's capacity to affect a single nation is just silly. I agree with the premise of what you say, just not how you said it.

I don't think this document is illegal because it would make a few other resolutions illegal as well. However, that is not the case in the matter.

I don't think this document is illegal because it would make a few other resolutions illegal as well. However, that is not the case in the matter.

It isn't illegal. They're just tilting at windmills.

OOC: This is what I found on Internet research for this to support self-government and it is freaky because it creates an Indigenous world-wide organization:

The United Nations estimates that Indigenous peoples number approximately 300 million in more than 70 countries. For example, it is now generally accepted that there are Indigenous peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa, the South Pacific (including Australia and New Zealand) and parts of Europe. Many of these Indigenous peoples remain isolated from the dominant societies of their own nation states. Many continue to be discriminated against solely as a result of their Indigenous status and unique world view. Many communities are just beginning the long, arduous journey toward self-governance and meaningful economic development and are looking for lessons and models from other Indigenous groups.

In the last several years, First Nations Development Institute, a Native American grantmaker and technical assistance organization, has received numerous requests for financial and technical assistance from Indigenous groups in Africa, Australia, Russia and Latin America. These groups want to design and implement their own development projects and programs. They are interested in how "we made it work" and in what we have learned in more than 18 years of trial and error.

In response, First Nations Development Institute has developed an international program called First Peoples Worldwide which will eventually spin off into a separate international organization. The goals of FPW are:

To assist with financial and technical resources in order to strengthen and facilitate Indigenous-controlled, culturally appropriate development projects, programs and intermediaries.
To facilitate and foster equitable environmental, legal and economic participation for Indigenous peoples.
To create an information clearinghouse and mutual self-help database called the Indigenous Network for Global Linkages.
To advocate for Indigenous self-governance.


Development Sites and Indigenous Network for Global Linkages

Currently, FPW is working at two development sites in southern Africa and Australia. In both cases, we work directly with local Indigenous organizations and communities on defined projects. Our work in southern Africa is primarily legal in nature while our work in Australia is geared toward developing an alternative financing mechanism for use by Aboriginal communities.

Southern Africa

First Peoples Worldwide's involvement in southern Africa began with a request from the San people of Botswana for technical assistance on culturally appropriate economic development. Without a secure land base, however, any economic development efforts were likely to be unsustainable, so our work evolved into a multi-pronged legal strategy to secure San control of their traditional territories and in doing so, to secure the San a place in contemporary Botswana society. In order to do this, we provide land rights information, technical assistance, and leadership skills training directly to San community members so that they can participate in domestic society, on their own terms and with their own parameters. In July 1997, we began delivering general community information workshops. Over the last year, these informal workshops have been formalized into permanent legal training curricula fostered by our partner, the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA). We believe that our efforts to inform constituent communities and train community motivators on the land tenure issue have made a significant contribution to furthering both the land rights and democratic aspirations of the San people of Botswana.

Aboriginal Community Foundation

In Australia, First Peoples Worldwide is working with Aboriginal leaders to create the Aboriginal Community Foundation (ACF) which will source alternative financing for community-driven Aboriginal economic development projects. The Aboriginal Community Foundation's mission is to promote and encourage Indigenous ownership and control of assets in a manner that enhances Indigenous culture and values. The goals of the foundation are:

To promote vibrant and prosperous Aboriginal communities.
To increase Aboriginal assets and economic control.
To create models of culturally appropriate Indigenous development.
To foster indigenous leadership.
Initially, the Aboriginal Community Foundation will be set up as a project of the Australian Youth Foundation in Sydney. The foundation is in the planning and design phase.
Selection of Third and Fourth Development Sites

On average, FPW is fielding five technical assistance requests per month. Based on the requests received, FPW is currently researching several possible sites for involvement, including Siberia, India, and a number of countries in Latin America. FPW carefully weighs several factors in choosing a site. The selection criteria include:



http://www.firstnations.org/Main/1stpepww.htm

http://www.naswdc.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/sovereignty.asp

Why create Indigenous self-government. Because as it goes hand in hand with the resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" it can increase the economic, political, structural, and social level of Indigenous peoples through the kind of governmental structure that the U.N member states and Indigenous groups can find.

With a self-government it doesn't cause independence but it adds an indigenous voice that insists on complaints and things that the U.N member states.

It will increase self-government and financial and other aspects of Indigenous peoples that is in line with Right of Indigenous peoples resolution.

<snip>
Of course it's been agreed that 'human rights' as it were, have no boundries. Which is why some of the very domestic issues manage to become UN business.
That's not to say that all HR issues should become UN issues. Quite the contrary.
The original IPA is simply a question of the Human Right of equality. Indigineous People can not be trampled underfoot. Equality is an UN worthy issue.

This is positive descrimination and minority rights, as well as devolution. Is it an important HR right? Probably. UN worthy....not in this case imo.

Of course it's been agreed that 'human rights' as it were, have no boundries. Which is why some of the very domestic issues manage to become UN business.
That's not to say that all HR issues should become UN issues. Quite the contrary.
The original IPA is simply a question of the Human Right of equality. Indigineous People can not be trampled underfoot. Equality is an UN worthy issue.

This is positive descrimination and minority rights, as well as devolution. Is it an important HR right? Probably. UN worthy....not in this case imo.

So the resolution that I have suggested isn't an important U.N issue. I disagree that it is positive discrimination, but I accept your constructive criticism.

How about not calling it a "Nation within a Nation" , but having the right to control funding to native organizations by the native organizations not outside agencies like the department of the interior or cultural missionaries. Also, having the right to form self-help organizations by natives to protect their own interests. This is more about the political rights of native self-management and control over funding. It is also about the right to preserve ones identity-- language, customs, education, etc. The main objection is the government bit not the financing bit. I wouldn't call this human rights, but political rights-- the rights to control over government funding and outside political interference.

That's what devolution is.:rolleyes:

I'm really torn on this one. I disagree with Randomea in that this is a fundamental human right. However, most of the human right element has already been addressed by resolution #89.

Self government is a difficult concept to pin down, given the diverse forms of national government systems out there. What exactly does it mean anyway? Giving one and only one example doesn't help at all, because by definition it's too vague. Resolution #89 is vague on governance but it does address it somewhat.

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

Education is also a noble goal, but it seems to be obvious from resolution #89. There is already a right to use native language, logic sort of demands that if you have the right to use it, you have the right to teach it. I realize that logic doesn't always apply to member UN nations, but it does come close to either duplication or amending on this point.

§9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons

§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

Likewise having a forum where varous indigenous peoples can meet, discuss things, and plan things in common is a noble cause in and of itself. I'm not sure that technically the UN can do that since all UN committees are staffed by UN gnomes not by indigenous people. On the other hand both are equally ficticious so I'm sure the mods could look the other way on that one from a role playing point of view, since the purpose is not to have member nations on committees.

In conclusion. It's probably too close to Resolution #89 to be a stand alone argument. Self governance is probably not going to be easy to either define or get approved. A global committee is simply too weak to get approved.

Someone help me out here. Where the hell did this come from. I don't recognize this at all, nor am I familiar with The UN actually having a Charter or any other resolution that is sectioned into chapters.

OOC: RL=/=NS The NSUN doesn't have this bill in its repertoire. Sorry.


OOC: I was under the impression that NSUN operated under the same Charter as RLUN, which is where the cited articles came from. If it doesn't operate under the same basic Charter, it shouldn't use the UN name and logo... that's misleading and misrepresentative.

OOC: I was under the impression that NSUN operated under the same Charter as RLUN, which is where the cited articles came from. If it doesn't operate under the same basic Charter, it shouldn't use the UN name and logo... that's misleading and misrepresentative.


OOC: Perhaps it can create some confusion, but that's just the way it's set up. I doubt that the programmers were aiming to mislead or misrepresent, simply hoping to give the organization a name and a face that the players of the game would recognize and identify with.

OOC: Perhaps it can create some confusion, but that's just the way it's set up. I doubt that the programmers were aiming to mislead or misrepresent, simply hoping to give the organization a name and a face that the players of the game would recognize and identify with.
OOC: Never meant to imply that the confusion had been created deliberately. I just woke up when I posted that, not yet fully aware and awake. That'll learn me to type BC - Before Coffee! It just seems to me that adopting the RLUN Charter as our own here makes sense. Maybe I'll propose it.

OOC: Never meant to imply that the confusion had been created deliberately. I just woke up when I posted that, not yet fully aware and awake. That'll learn me to type BC - Before Coffee! It just seems to me that adopting the RLUN Charter as our own here makes sense. Maybe I'll propose it.
It would be deleted as it would be considered a RL reference violation.

Why create Indigenous self-government. Because as it goes hand in hand with the resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" it can increase the economic, political, structural, and social level of Indigenous peoples through the kind of governmental structure that the U.N member states and Indigenous groups can find. With a self-government it doesn't cause independence but it adds an indigenous voice that insists on complaints and things that the U.N member states.

Wow.
Where do I start?
While it's true that NS is not real life, I just have to point out that if you think what you just said is what happens in real life, then you need to come visit me. I will take you around to a few of the local reserves and I will show you what self-government has NOT produced. I have no idea what the situation is in the US, Australia or New Zealand, but here in Canada reserves suffer from the highest poverty levels, the lowest social infrastructure, the highest crime, prostitution, abuse and drug use rates. Self-government has had no measurable effect on any of these problems.
The idea of a nation within a nation only serves to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. It is not useful in building up a cohesive social whole.

Having said that, I recognise that Nation States is not real life. Since it is only a simulation, the actual effects of self-government for natives will not be felt anywhere. If you want to have it, that is your business, but I will be voting this resolution down should it make quorum.
National sovereignty and all that jazz...

--Rooty

In the US there are plenty of cases for Indian Reservations with high poverty, although I'm not sure the reason is the self governance itself or simply the effect of lack of economy of scale, having no major sources of revenue and not enough people to burden the common costs. In addition there has been a long tradition of messing with these people, up to the present day where one person is currently on trial for a major lobbying scandal that included defrauding a number of tribal governments as well.

Currently self governmance seems to be the ability to sell cigarettes without a sales tax, creating casinos in states that don't allow the practice and recently allowing abortions in the one state that just signed a very draconian anti-abortion law that's probably gonig to be thrown out by the Supreme Court one of these days.

Not all nations have Indigenous people in them, so this really should not be something the UN brings up.

Not all nations have Indigenous people in them, so this really should not be something the UN brings up.This is definately something that the UN should discuss. Indigenous cultures cross present day borders (and thus is international in nature), are a broad group scattered throughout the UN, is a matter for international peace and security, and finally just because not all nations have them does not eliminate the relevance.

ooc: still no-one answering my Australian enquiry. I know there's Ozzies in UN, where have ye all gone?

Why create Indigenous self-government. Because as it goes hand in hand with the resolution "Rights for Indigenous Peoples" it can increase the economic, political, structural, and social level of Indigenous peoples through the kind of governmental structure that the U.N member states and Indigenous groups can find.Now the UN is overdoing it as we believe; most would believe that the UN is to promote individual nations within it's membership to equal status with others nations. Not slice them up into individual self governments formed by any single group that may have some claim to that right. The UN is suppose to help keep nations intact not slice the hell out of them.

With a self-government it doesn't cause independence but it adds an indigenous voice that insists on complaints and things that the U.N member states.Bull that's exactly what it does as they want independence from the national government. Look at most two party systems and how much trouble there is simply with them. Now you want to let every group become a self government! Thus something even worse than another political party messing things up.

It will increase self-government and financial and other aspects of Indigenous peoples that is in line with Right of Indigenous peoples resolution.What these people need to do as citizens of a nation is do their duty to promote the financial and other aspects of that national government. Not move away from it and start their own self government.