NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations General Assembly...

BELIEVING the UN to be a voluntary, open covenant of nations uniting for mutual interests,

AFFIRMING that all nations have certain, inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed by this body,

ASSERTING that respect, integrity and responsibility are required for such a body as the UN to exist,

hereby RESOLVES that

1) The expenditures for the UN for any fiscal year shall not exceed the revenue of the UN obtained for the same fiscal year;

2) The powers not delegated to individual nations by the UN, nor prohibited by it to them, are reserved to the nations respectively;

3) The UN shall recognize as legitimate for any individual nation any form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that does not permit genocide, enslavement, or other crimes deemed to be unacceptable by this body;

4) The UN shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that shall be held uniform for all member nations;

5) The UN shall legislate on issues concerning education and creativity, the environment, the furtherment of industry, social justice, free trade, human rights, the furtherment of democracy, international security, global disarmament, moral decency, political stability, gambling, recreational drug use, gun control and other issues of international significance as it sees fit.

Exhausted as I am after the debate and passage of "Rights of the Disabled," I've been kicking this idea around in my head for a while. I am a fan of general national sovereignty and would like to see the powers of the UN more clearly drawn-out and defined. What do you think of this draft proposal?

I'm still looking for a good title, by the way.

While the intention is good I've come across this block myself: You can't stop the UN from legislating on anything unless by an action.

And the UN has no income, it's entirely donation based due to the taxation ban.

donations are still income.

BTW I'm withdrawing our donations for a while thanks to "rights of the disabled" which due to it's wording actually increases discrimination against the disabled in my country :P

While the intention is good I've come across this block myself: You can't stop the UN from legislating on anything unless by an action.

And the UN has no income, it's entirely donation based due to the taxation ban.


UN taxation ban


Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

You're right that the question of the UN funding is not yet resolved but the ban is only about direct taxes on citizens.

As was already suggested, the lack of actual action is questionable legality, though UNR #49 shows that there is a possibility of this being legal. We'll wait for a mod to comment.

Regardless.

The United Nations General Assembly...

BELIEVING the UN to be a voluntary, open covenant of nations uniting for mutual interests,

AFFIRMING that all nations have certain, inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed by this body,

Ugh

ASSERTING that respect, integrity and responsibility are required for such a body as the UN to exist,

hereby RESOLVES that

1) The expenditures for the UN for any fiscal year shall not exceed the revenue of the UN obtained for the same fiscal year;

Nay

Year 1: Surplus of 16 million
Year 2: Surplus of 46 million

In year 3, we now have 62 million dollars locked in a bank account that we can't touch....and never can touch.......and never will be able to touch.

With our income being non-static, I think this isn't the most reasonable of systems. However, saying the UN will never spend more money than it has available, fine.

2) The powers not delegated to individual nations by the UN, nor prohibited by it to them, are reserved to the nations respectively;

Duplicates UNR #49, Article 2

3) The UN shall recognize as legitimate for any individual nation any form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that does not permit genocide, enslavement, or other crimes deemed to be unacceptable by this body;

1) Don't single out specific crimes - borderline duplication of the resolutions that already outlawed them.
2) This might be a resolution killer, unless you put "individual member nation". The way it's worded, anyone who disagrees with the UN is no longer recognized as a legitamite body. Considering we've legalized Euthanasia, protected same-sex marriage, and at one point had legalized abortion, this might just run afoul with many nations. Add on all the environmental and worker rights and other resolutions that have been passed......y'know?

4) The UN shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that shall be held uniform for all member nations;

Duplicates UNR #49, Article 1

5) The UN shall legislate on issues concerning education and creativity, the environment, the furtherment of industry, social justice, free trade, human rights, the furtherment of democracy, international security, global disarmament, moral decency, political stability, gambling, recreational drug use, gun control and other issues of international significance as it sees fit.

Metagaming. Add on that there's discussion of more categories being added. Add on that theoretically, we can legislate on just about anything that doesn't fail any of the rules, this kinda makes that impossible. Drop it.

Overall......it seems to try and do what was already accomplished by UNR #49, giving us an effective Charter.

UN funding is a dirty little secret of the gnomes. They work hard all morning going to every nation (UN and non UN) to make the daily UN survey and in the afternoon they give out tootsie rolls for donations. Some actually disguise themselves as children selling lemonade on the sidewalks. Given the total number of nations that are not in the UN, they manage to sneak in enough revenue to not only pay their salleries, but also provides each gnome with a one week vacation in disneyland.

The nation of Realpolitika fully supports a clear demarcation of the limits of UN intrusion into state sovereignty. I believe the intent behind this proposal is sound, but there are some flaws.

The powers not delegated to individual nations by the UN, nor prohibited by it to them, are reserved to the nations respectively;

State it this way: As the sovereignty of member states in domestic matters is supreme, (and then go on straight into the article you have numbered as 4)



4) The UN shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that shall be held uniform for all member nations;

5) The UN shall legislate on issues concerning education and creativity, the environment, the furtherment of industry, social justice, free trade, human rights, the furtherment of democracy, international security, global disarmament, moral decency, political stability, gambling, recreational drug use, gun control and other issues of international significance as it sees fit.

How can the UN stay out of economic planning and governance, yet still advocate for free trade and furtherance of democracy?

And how is it within the purview of the UN to legislate on gambling, recreational drug use, gun control, and moral decency?

It would be best to eliminate clause 5. Do not ascribe any legislative authority to the UN, but just use clause 4 to indicate the areas free from UN intervention.

These changes would simplify the language, join clauses 2, 3, and 4 into one easy to understand section, and eliminate the clumsy section 5.

And someone has already addressed section 1.

Rp

What about Rights & Duties?

Furthermore, I don't see a need for this. No UN proposal is ever going to establish a UN religion; the ideological ban rule has stayed in place; the categories are a coded function. This proposal seems like a big mess of Games Mechanics and redundancy to me. So, nice idea, but I don't think it'll get anywhere without being either illegal or fairly pointless.

The United Nations General Assembly...

BELIEVING the UN to be a voluntary, open covenant of nations uniting for mutual interests,

One hopes for mutual interest, but it is obvious that there are dissenters in any discussion.

AFFIRMING that all nations have certain, inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed by this body,

Perhaps should not could replace cannot, along with a demarcation of some or those inalienable rights. Int/Feds will eat this clause alive, though.

ASSERTING that respect, integrity and responsibility are required for such a body as the UN to exist,

Another nice thought, though I fear it is somewhat naive. There are many nations that barely meet any of these qualifications at the best of times, and there are many of us who, while normally well spoken, devolve into barely coherent sniping on bad days.

hereby RESOLVES that

1) The expenditures for the UN for any fiscal year shall not exceed the revenue of the UN obtained for the same fiscal year;

Problems here have already been mentioned.

2) The powers not delegated to individual nations by the UN, nor prohibited by it to them, are reserved to the nations respectively;

Perhaps I am reading this wrong. This clause seems, to me, to mean that any powers that are not already delegated to nations or the UN are firmly in the hand of the nations, making it impossible for the UN to legislate on such matters. Another Int/Fed buffet to be had.

3) The UN shall recognize as legitimate for any individual nation any form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that does not permit genocide, enslavement, or other crimes deemed to be unacceptable by this body;

Drop the listing of specific crimes. Simply state "...that does not permit crimes deemed unacceptable by this body."

4) The UN shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that shall be held uniform for all member nations;

Another that I may be reading incorrectly. Would this mean that we couldn't guarantee freedom of religion across the board?

5) The UN shall legislate on issues concerning education and creativity, the environment, the furtherment of industry, social justice, free trade, human rights, the furtherment of democracy, international security, global disarmament, moral decency, political stability, gambling, recreational drug use, gun control and other issues of international significance as it sees fit.

There is some debate that some of these categories don't qualify for international significance, meaning that some of the Nat/Sov crowd would tear this clause apart. There is also the issue of new categories being introduced in the future.

I would be very interested in seeing a fully developed, and definitive Charter for the UN. This isn't a terrible start, but it would definitely need work. I fear that I am not up to the task to help overmuch with such a Charter. The opposing forces and considerations that would need to be balanced would make a world class juggler blanch.

I would be very interested in seeing a fully developed, and definitive Charter for the UN. This isn't a terrible start, but it would definitely need work. I fear that I am not up to the task to help overmuch with such a Charter. The opposing forces and considerations that would need to be balanced would make a world class juggler blanch.
This is an excellent idea. It is becoming apparent to me, at least, the there needs to be a Charter, a Constitution, a whatever-you-want-call-it which acts as an overarching guide for everything this body does, defining what it can and cannot do, setting limitations and establishing the nature of the relationship between UN and members.

How about this?

Rights and Duties of UN States



A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

The Art of War:

Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Article 6 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Article 8 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.

Section III:

The Role of the United Nations:

Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.


And if not, what's missing?

How about this?



And if not, what's missing?


Damn you and your logic

Damn you and your logic

What can I say

It just likes getting in the way of .... "progress"

I would be in favour of any legislation that attempts to curtail the power of the UN. However, I am not sure that this proposal is the best way to go about it. It might be an idea for the author to take a look at the existing resolutions that deal with how the UN is to perform before submitting this proposal. As already mentioned, there is some overlap... and the last thing we need is yet another overlapping law.

--Rooty

The honorable representative of Forgottenlands was quite correct to direct the attention of the Assembly to NSUN Resolution #49. It's quite germane to this discussion. We don't think its existence should be a bar toward further consideration of this subject, though.

NSUN Resolution #49 is a completely one-sided document. While it places requirements on nations, it does nothing to restrict or define the role of the NSUN. That, we think, is the concern being expressed by some members here.

We're not sure that such an effort is advisable, practicable, or even possible, but it may well be worth exploring. We recall an effort come time back (by the representative of Hirota?) to craft a proposal which would serve as something of a charter for the organization. Although we had some hesitation about it, it was a fine effort -- perhaps worth looking at again.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

UN funding is a dirty little secret of the gnomes.
Oh, I know how its funded. But everyone shat upon the idea.

Ahem.

This proposal seems like little more than a rehash of the rules that already exist for resolutions. While I appreciate the idea of checks and balances against the United Nations, the truth of the matter is that no proposal that attempts to do so will work.

The game rules clearly state that no proposal can limit what a future proposal does. That said, we could never pass a resolution that says, "No one can pass a law establishing a universal court," because it's simply not true. Without rewriting the code, anyone can submit such a proposal. Whether or not it passes . . bleh.

NSUN Resolution #49 is a completely one-sided document. While it places requirements on nations, it does nothing to restrict or define the role of the NSUN.
It is written thusly because it MUST be written thusly. Any attempt to curtail the game-designed unlimited powers of the UN would have been rejected as illegal, as will most any similar resolution.

Like it or not, Rights and Duties reflects the true nature of the NSUN.






... naturally, I'm biased neither by the fact that I am a Game Offiical nor that I authored Res #49. It's simply self-evidently true!

It is written thusly because it MUST be written thusly. Any attempt to curtail the game-designed unlimited powers of the UN would have been rejected as illegal, as will most any similar resolution.

Like it or not, Rights and Duties reflects the true nature of the NSUN.


... naturally, I'm biased neither by the fact that I am a Game Offiical nor that I authored Res #49. It's simply self-evidently true!

OOC: You're right in what you say, Fris, which is why I mentioned that I doubted this sort of thing was even possible. But you may recall that the approach in Hirota's (?) draft was quite different than an approach at mass blocking. It attempted to lay out the areas that were clearly of proper concern for the UN. I think there's value -- especially for the benefit of newer members -- in reasonable discussion of what we should be all about. May not turn out worthwhile, but it might at least be interesting.

Which brings us to the question of whether it would be read by the average newbie.

Which brings us to the question of whether it would be read by the average newbie.
Is anything read by the average newbie?:D

Is anything read by the average newbie?:D
The ejection notice on their UN multis ... but apart from that, can't say that anything is reliably read. Especially true on the n00blets who refer to their nations as 'regions' and vice versa.

OOC: You're right in what you say, Fris, which is why I mentioned that I doubted this sort of thing was even possible. But you may recall that the approach in Hirota's (?) draft was quite different than an approach at mass blocking. It attempted to lay out the areas that were clearly of proper concern for the UN. I think there's value -- especially for the benefit of newer members -- in reasonable discussion of what we should be all about. May not turn out worthwhile, but it might at least be interesting.

And here, for everyones reference, is the draft charter in question.

Charter of the UN
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hirota

Description: The General Assembly

Determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small;

Further determined to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained;

Resolute in promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Firm in our determination to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors’

Unwavering in our resolve to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security;

Most resolute to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest;

Intending to employ the international “machine” for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples;

Proclaims this Declaration;

1.Resolve to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to bring about by peaceful means, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2.Further resolve to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3.Determined to achieve international cooperation in solving international issues of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

4.Resolute that the United Nations shall promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all including:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation;

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, sexuality, language, or religion;

d. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

e. to promote measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with international bodies with a view to the achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes

5.Resolved to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these ends;

6.Determined that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members;

7.Determined that all members, in order to ensure to all of them the benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter and existing and future resolutions;

8.Further determined that all members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter and existing and future resolutions, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking enforcement action;

9.Affirms its resolve in this matter.

Would it be a thousand times easier for me to just make a required balanced budget resolution, looking something like this?

The United Nations General Assembly...

ASSERTING that respect, integrity and fiscal responsibility are required for such a body as the UN to exist,

hereby RESOLVES that

The expenditures for the UN for any fiscal year shall not exceed the revenue of the UN obtained for the same fiscal year.

How about this?



And if not, what's missing?
Well, first: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
This does not free member NationStates from intererence by the UN, only from interference by other NationStates.

Next:Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
This places nat-sov directly under the heel of the UN. If an international law were passed deeming that not-sov is completely irrelevant, then members would have no choice but to surrender their sovereignty to the UN. Further to that, it once again doea nothign to address the UN itself, but instead speaks to relations between members.

In fact, the entire section on Role of the UN does not address, even a little bit, the role of the UN.

What's missing is ANY limitation on the ability of the UN to intrude into the domestic affairs of its members.

OOC: I think there's value -- especially for the benefit of newer members -- in reasonable discussion of what we should be all about. May not turn out worthwhile, but it might at least be interesting.
It might not only benefit newer members, but every member. A sense of real direction cannot be a bad thing, can it? I don't want to get into the mechanics of "You can't do x or y", but into the principles of what the UN is all about, and what its true purpose is, and a delineation of legislative areas which ought to be beyond its jurisdiction. It also might be nice to adopt a Charter which is not a simple resolution. Res 49 could be repealed at any time by a simple majority vote, could it not? If there were a Charter requiring a 2/3 or 3/4 majority to amend, it would trult stand as a guiding light for this Assembly.

Rp

Well, first:
This does not free member NationStates from intererence by the UN, only from interference by other NationStates.

Next:
This places nat-sov directly under the heel of the UN. If an international law were passed deeming that not-sov is completely irrelevant, then members would have no choice but to surrender their sovereignty to the UN. Further to that, it once again doea nothign to address the UN itself, but instead speaks to relations between members.

In fact, the entire section on Role of the UN does not address, even a little bit, the role of the UN.

What's missing is ANY limitation on the ability of the UN to intrude into the domestic affairs of its members.

NatSov is a concept created by members after the founding of the UN. UNR #49 effectively shows what the UN was designed as in its FOUNDING - which is what a Charter is. Remember, the UN was founded by Max Barry, not by a group of nations wanting to get together. Yet for some strange reason, a vast percentage of nations decided they wanted to join the UN.

NatSov is a concept of what the UN should be. UNR #49 is a concept of what the UN is. In my mind, that makes it an effective charter.

I have serious concerns about picking one position or another of what the UN should be and placing it as the holy grail of "this is what we stand for". Within the UN regulars, there's a few more NatSovs than IntFeds, but the moderates that either associate with both or neither are greater than either group. I'd actually say IndSov is more popular than NatSov - and even moreso amongst the UNGA.

As much as many members would like to have a document that protects or tosses out NatSov, I honestly think that it's a poor way to settle our longstanding dispute. I prefer this body when it has no true position and keeps fighting over what it should be, what direction it should have, and how that should apply to the next resolution.

Well, first:
This does not free member NationStates from intererence by the UN, only from interference by other NationStates.Which is as it should be. If you really want to be totally free from interference from the UN, then resignation is the only secure 100% guaranteed option. Everything else is subjective.Next:
This places nat-sov directly under the heel of the UN. If an international law were passed deeming that not-sov is completely irrelevant, then members would have no choice but to surrender their sovereignty to the UN. Further to that, it once again doea nothign to address the UN itself, but instead speaks to relations between members.I suspect any such proposal might come under an ideological ban.What's missing is ANY limitation on the ability of the UN to intrude into the domestic affairs of its members.As it should be. The UN's power is theoretically limitless. It's only limits is it cannot affect non-members. Everything else is not limited by you, by me or by anyone else.

I fully agree that this discussion could prove quite useful, even though I've tossed the original resolution idea at the beginning.

Still, could anyone please comment on my draft for a balanced budget? Is it a good idea, or not?

I fully agree that this discussion could prove quite useful, even though I've tossed the original resolution idea at the beginning.

Still, could anyone please comment on my draft for a balanced budget? Is it a good idea, or not?

Well.......we have a budget?

Well.......we have a budget?
For that matter, we have funds?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The United Nations General Assembly...

BELIEVING the UN to be a voluntary, open covenant of nations uniting for mutual interests,

AFFIRMING that all nations have certain, inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed by this body,

ASSERTING that respect, integrity and responsibility are required for such a body as the UN to exist,
Fair enough
hereby RESOLVES that

1) The expenditures for the UN for any fiscal year shall not exceed the revenue of the UN obtained for the same fiscal year;
No deficit budgets. I don't think this is a problem anyways since the UN is funded by donation anyways. And since the gnomes work for nothing they don't have to pay anyone.
2) The powers not delegated to individual nations by the UN, nor prohibited by it to them, are reserved to the nations respectively;
Since the UN is constantly changing and evolving I'm not sure you're allowed to do this.
3) The UN shall recognize as legitimate for any individual nation any form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that does not permit genocide, enslavement, or other crimes deemed to be unacceptable by this body;
No need for this. It is already deemed by game rules that this is illegal. Any proposals that include things like this will be deleted by the moderators. Even if they did somehow make it to vote they would fail.

4) The UN shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, form of governance, system of economic planning, etc. that shall be held uniform for all member nations;
This is basically saying the same thing again and it is irrelevant for the same reasons as above.
5) The UN shall legislate on issues concerning education and creativity, the environment, the furtherment of industry, social justice, free trade, human rights, the furtherment of democracy, international security, global disarmament, moral decency, political stability, gambling, recreational drug use, gun control and other issues of international significance as it sees fit.
And with that you destroy all that you were trying to do with this proposal by allowing the UN to legislate on anything and everything because if it votes in something obviously they see it as being 'fit'