NationStates Jolt Archive

As one of the newest members of the United Nations, it has come to the attention to the Armed Republic of Utskistan that many of the resolutions proposed by the UN tread on the absolute and ultimate authority of the nation state. The erosion of sovereignty cannot be tolerated. For too long the will of the nation state has been neglected and ignored. Now is the time for nation states to put the UN back in its place as a voluntary body with no power to usurp sovereign powers from any state without that states' express specific voluntary approval.

My government has instructed me to find like minded members to propose the "Absolute Sovereignty Resolution" emphatically stating that the member states do not relinquish any sovereignty by its membership in this body.

Kubula Khan
UN Ambassador for Life
Long Live the Great Ghengis Khan
Armed Republic of Utskistan

You would essentially have to repeal all resolutions passed by the NSUN for this to be legal.

*snip*Really? Under which category would this resolution fall under? And how can it possibly be worded so as not to be illegal?

There has never been a UN resolution that was repealed? There has never been a time when the UN has changed its mind? To quote "Really?"

There has never been a UN resolution that was repealed? There has never been a time when the UN has changed its mind? To quote "Really?"

Sure, repeals have been passed. Sure, the UN has changed its mind, but that doesn't change the fact that a proposal like this couldn't ever be legal, unless you repeal every single resolution. I'd support most of those repeals, though.

Under what standard of "legality?" There is a higher law than that which creates the United Nations. Sovereignty of the Nation State can be traced to the early Greek City States and before - absolute rights to control the lives of its citizens. Without voluntarily relinquishing those basic powers - that to control the general welfare and police powers - nation states are the sole repository for those powers until they are transferred elsewhere.

The Armed Republic of Utskistan believes that this idea that the UN has some popular sovereignty which emanates from the people is rubbish, misinformed and unfounded in fact. The UN exists because the nation states say it exists - without the nation states - the UN is nothing - without the UN nation states still exist.

So as far as your concern regarding "legality" - I believe you have been fed a line of bull and seem to be feasting on it happily - if not ignorantly.

....voluntary body with no power to usurp sovereign powers from any state without that states' express specific voluntary approval.

You give your express consent by remaining in the UN. Anything that passes applies to every UN member nation, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, what would be the point of the UN in the first place. If people could choose which laws they wished to follow and which they wished to ignore, we would quickly spiral into a state of chaos.

The like-mided individuals you seek are in the National Sovereignty Organization. I don't have the link ready to hand, but Jey here could help you out.

Right. Or Kenny: s11.invisionfree.com/natsovorg

The like-mided individuals you seek are in the National Sovereignty Organization. I don't have the link ready to hand, but Jey here could help you out.Mind you, they are moderates compared to some of the tinpots out there.

As one of the newest members of the United Nations, it has come to the attention to the Armed Republic of Utskistan that many of the resolutions proposed by the UN tread on the absolute and ultimate authority of the nation state.

You have absolute and ultimate authority? Who gives you this authority? Where does this claim originate from? How is it that you have the "ultimate" authority when there is a higher power above you?

The erosion of sovereignty cannot be tolerated.

I think we're past the point of erosion

For too long the will of the nation state has been neglected and ignored.

In favor of the person. I fail to see how the nationstate should be preferred over its citizens

Now is the time for nation states to put the UN back in its place as a voluntary body

It is voluntary. You can either be IN the United Nations, or outside the United Nations. See - voluntary membership

with no power to usurp sovereign powers from any state without that states' express specific voluntary approval.

Why?

My government has instructed me to find like minded members

Fine the National Sovereignty Organization.

to propose the "Absolute Sovereignty Resolution" emphatically stating that the member states do not relinquish any sovereignty by its membership in this body.

Considering that Kenny here is one of the major members of the NSO, and he was ridiculing the idea as "unfeasable", I think you're probably going to be looking at SOL status.

Under what standard of "legality?"

The Most Glorious Protocals written by General Secretary the Most Glorious Hack (AKA: most active moderator on the UN forum). It's stickied above

There is a higher law than that which creates the United Nations.

Well, it's really the same power. The Great Max Barry who founded the United Nations distributed some of his power and brought in the secretariat (OOCly AKA: the moderators and admins) who hold the UN in check.

Sovereignty of the Nation State can be traced to the early Greek City States and before - absolute rights to control the lives of its citizens.

Yes, back then the society was structured that the most stable level of sovereignty was at the civil level. Since then it has evolved considerably. During the medieval ages, in particular, we saw the evolution of it with the sovereignty moving from the regional lords, dukes, counts, etc (who normally raised an army and donated it to the King if the King needed a war) to the sovereignty of the state. The evolution of Nationalism under Napolean would probably be considered the point where the sovereignty finally transferred completely to the state instead of the lord.

There's a reason they're called the state.

Within the game, sovereignty continues to evolve with many now having the sovereignty held at the regional level. There are those of us who feel that the United Nations should be the next sovereign body - or something like it.

Without voluntarily relinquishing those basic powers - that to control the general welfare and police powers - nation states are the sole repository for those powers until they are transferred elsewhere.

Well.....considering the United Nations is currently voting on an issue regarding police powers, there have been at least two passed and unrepealed resolutions that regard police and judicial powers, and there have been many resolutions and attempted proposals on the issue of general welfare, I fail to see how they aren't already being transferred.

The Armed Republic of Utskistan believes that this idea that the UN has some popular sovereignty which emanates from the people is rubbish, misinformed and unfounded in fact. The UN exists because the nation states say it exists - without the nation states - the UN is nothing - without the UN nation states still exist.

False. The United Nations was formed by the Great Max Barry. Even if every single nation left it, it would probably still exist. Would it have nearly the influence and power it has right now? No. However, that doesn't remove its continued claim to existance.

When the secretariat decide to destroy it, that's when it'll be gone.

So as far as your concern regarding "legality" - I believe you have been fed a line of bull and seem to be feasting on it happily - if not ignorantly.

Ignorance is bliss, huh. Perhaps you should learn something before claiming "bull!"

Sovereignty is one of if not THE most hotly contested concepts within these halls. Do not make the mistake in assuming you're the only one who has brought this idea forth or have all the answers.

Hehe, absolute...

http://hodgelett.com/absolut.png

Could make that into a card.

ooc: bugger, my website ftp is being a jerk.
temporary imageshack host: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3821/absolut1mn.th.png (http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=absolut1mn.png)

Nicely done randomea, nicely done.


As for this "proposal"...ummm, where is the proposal? I just see some guy bitching about how the UN tells him what to do (hint, it's the UN's job). Either join NatSov and try and do something constructive about your opinion, or just leave the UN and have all the soveignty, slaves, nukes, and crazy laws you want.

NatSov is a theory, not a group. You can't join it, you can believe in it/work for it/promote it/etc.

NSO, however, is a group that can be joined.

NSO, my mistake.

Under what standard of "legality?" There is a higher law than that which creates the United Nations. Sovereignty of the Nation State can be traced to the early Greek City States and before - absolute rights to control the lives of its citizens. Without voluntarily relinquishing those basic powers - that to control the general welfare and police powers - nation states are the sole repository for those powers until they are transferred elsewhere.

Your opinion of absoute right is contentious and by no means universally accepted. You'll find that many nations at the U.N. are very much in favour of establishing international standards and laws in as many areas as possible, for the perceived common good of all the citizens of member nations. Now, our position is contentious, contested and still a matter of significant argument. What makes yours any less so?

And who or what are these mysterious Greek City States of which you speak? (Hint: Flag a RL reference when you include it. I've been guilty of not doing this myself and it can confuse other debaters).a

The Armed Republic of Utskistan believes that this idea that the UN has some popular sovereignty which emanates from the people is rubbish, misinformed and unfounded in fact. The UN exists because the nation states say it exists - without the nation states - the UN is nothing - without the UN nation states still exist.

In what sense "rubbish, misinformed and unfounded". The fact that we have a democratic procedure to decide our policies is some kind of confidence trick then?

So as far as your concern regarding "legality" - I believe you have been fed a line of bull and seem to be feasting on it happily - if not ignorantly.

Whoo, ignorant are we now. TACP honourable delegate, TACP.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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