NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just an idea, but one that has been appealing to me since discussion with the representative of Tarmsden.

Transparency and Accountability
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Significant MOD ruling requested

The United Nations,

Reaffirming its dedication to the pursuit of healthy international relations,

Recognising the importance of General Assembly resolutions in the establishment of codes of international law,

Conscious of the potential damage to its mission that corruption, poor administration or any actions creating mistrust of the UN and its agencies could engender,

Determined to eliminate all sources of corruption, inefficiency and waste from its midst:

1. Declares that this resolution applies to the UN Secretariat, any sub-agencies thereof, and any other agencies operating under UN mandate ("UN agencies") and to any individuals in the pay of the UN, or undertaking work as part of a voluntary organization of the UN, or under UN mandate ("UN officials");

2. Establishes the "We Hate Ourselves Protocols" for UN agencies and UN officials to abide by:
- to submit to independent audits on at least an annual basis;
- to maintain full and detailed records of all financial transactions, acquisitions, meetings, any forms of donations or accepted gifts, any changes in employment or management structure, and any changes in rules of operational procedure;
- to make available all such records upon request, with the exception of any information prejudicial to national security or trade secrets, which may be reserved for not more than thirty years;
- to impose on such requests charges only where necessary for the administration thereof;
- to refrain from the receipt of any form of donation or gift from parties involved in current UN actions or disputes, and to report any attempts at such;
- to refrain from any form of criminal activity;
- to refrain from making any personal political statements whilst acting in an official capacity, or whilst wearing official UN insignia;
- to ensure that committee compositions are suitably broad and representative;

3. Establishes the We Hate Ourselves Committee as a select group composed of independent individuals with significant relevant experience and outstanding moral records, to arbitrate ethical disputes:
- to contract and oversee independent auditors;
- to enforce the provisions of the Protocols;
- to critically examine UN records to identify corruption, waste and inefficiency, and take all necessary actions to eliminate such;
- to, where appropriate, bring criminal charges against UN officials;
- to oversee the creation of standard operating procedures for all UN agencies that are in sufficient legal standing;
- to have the power to suspend, investigate and dismiss UN officials accused of ethical or moral violations, criminal misconduct, or corruption;

4. Supports all means of eliminating corruption from within the United Nations.

Comments? I'm particularly interested on how to implement some aspects of freedom of information - the FoIA being touted as a future proposal refers only to national governments - without compromising national security, trade secrets, etc. The other problem is of interpretation: loophole-finding is a grand tradition, but I don't want the gnomes to be given any loopholes.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"
Member, Women's Council On Democracy

OOC:
I am not sure this proposal is legal, as stands. Here are my issues:
- category?
- MetaGaming? (more a general feeling than anything explicit)
- amending old resolutions?
- anything else?

Both mod and player feedback on that would be appreciated. I'd like to think this sort of proposal is possible, but I'm aware it will take some work to get it into an acceptable shape.

And yes, the Protocol name is a joke. I'll think up something serious later.

Blast. I was kinda hoping I'd get to throw around the name "WHOP" every so often simply because of its amusing sound.


I like the idea a lot, I'd like to see this make it to the floor for vote. My question to you is, what are some examples where United Nations documentation might be kept secret and immune from the FoI clause due to national or international security reasons?

Beyond that, and a mod determination of legality, I like it.

- to refrain from making any personal political statements whilst acting in an official capacity, or where wearing official UN insignia, or where working or travelling in vehicles or buildings identified with official UN insignia;
I don't see why the last part of the clause is necessary. If they're not working in an official capacity and don't have UN insignia on, why shouldn't they be able to make political statements while inside the UN HQ?

The proposal looks very nice.

I like the idea a lot, I'd like to see this make it to the floor for vote. My question to you is, what are some examples where United Nations documentation might be kept secret and immune from the FoI clause due to national or international security reasons?
Ok, I have an example. The UN Demining Survey undertakes some work in Landminetopia. They identify three minefields, and map them. They clear two; the nation asks them to leave the third, because they're using it for defensive purposes. The UNDS keeps their original records of the coordinates of Landminetopia's third, uncleared minefield.

Then, Invaderstan invades Landminetopia. The Invaderstani army shouldn't be able to use the UN to gain security information so it can render Landminetopia's defences useless.

I don't see why the last part of the clause is necessary. If they're not working in an official capacity and don't have UN insignia on, why shouldn't they be able to make political statements while inside the UN HQ?
Yeah, I suppose that's unnecessary. I'll cut it.

Reaffirming its dedication to the pursuit of healthy international relations,


Good.


Determined to eliminate all sources of corruption, inefficiency and waste from its midst:


Good.


- to submit to independent audits on at least an annual basis;


Overseen by "WHOCs"?


- to maintain full and detailed records of all financial transactions, acquisitions, meetings, any forms of donations or accepted gifts, any changes in employment or management structure, and any changes in rules of operational procedure;
- to make available all such records upon request, with the exception of any information prejudicial to national security or trade secrets, which may be reserved for not more than thirty years;


All good, although easily open to loopholes and downright lies. Still, better than nothing. And the thirty-years clause is indeed needed.


- to refrain from the receipt of any form of donation or gift from parties involved in current UN actions or disputes, and to report any attempts at such;


Good.


- to refrain from any form of criminal activity;


Is this line needed? Surely a activity already established as criminal is illegal by default, without a resolution having to remind us of the fact.


- to refrain from making any personal political statements whilst acting in an official capacity, or whilst wearing official UN insignia;


I know you're removing this, but just a comment anyway. A UN committee with a specific purpose which some may see as "political" (environmental policies, for example) would potentially find this very awkward.


- to ensure that committee compositions are suitably broad and representative;


Good in theory, but possibly open to abuse. I can just imagine wood logging industries claiming an "equal say" in environmental committees.


- to, where appropriate, bring criminal charges against UN officials;
[...]
- to have the power to suspend, investigate and dismiss UN officials accused of ethical or moral violations, criminal misconduct, or corruption;


To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done before. (OOC:I don't think it would be meta-gaming, and I certainly hope it's not.) Full support here.

On the whole, a good idea. My only concern is the potential for several of these clauses to be abused or interpreted as loopholes.


Christelle ZYRYANOV,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Overseen by "WHOCs"?
Yes. Perhaps I should put in that the appointment (or at least approval) of auditors will be by WHOC?

All good, although easily open to loopholes and downright lies. Still, better than nothing. And the thirty-years clause is indeed needed.
Yeah, this isn't really a freedom of information resolution, but I thought I might include something about it. Any help on wording that clause - or opinions on striking it - are welcome.

Is this line needed? Surely a activity already established as criminal is illegal by default, without a resolution having to remind us of the fact.
There is no present prohibition on UN officials engaging in criminal activity.

I know you're removing this, but just a comment anyway. A UN committee with a specific purpose which some may see as "political" (environmental policies, for example) would potentially find this very awkward.
I'm not removing it. I removed one line; the rest of the clause stays anyway. I disagree with your interpretation: the inclusion of "personal" is clearly meant to delineate between actions in an official capacity and otherwise.

Good in theory, but possibly open to abuse. I can just imagine wood logging industries claiming an "equal say" in environmental committees.
And? Deforestation will go on; I can't think of anyone better to talk to about its effects than the people who do it and deal with it on a daily basis.

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done before. (OOC:I don't think it would be meta-gaming, and I certainly hope it's not.) Full support here.
Ok, thanks. I hope it's legal too, but I'm not sure.

Yes. Perhaps I should put in that the appointment (or at least approval) of auditors will be by WHOC?


I think so, yes. Otherwise it's not clear who the "independent" outside parties are, or what makes them independent.


There is no present prohibition on UN officials engaging in criminal activity.


Still, isn't it obvious by default? If something's criminal then it's illegal. Otherwise it wouldn't be legally considered criminal.


I disagree with your interpretation: the inclusion of "personal" is clearly meant to delineate between actions in an official capacity and otherwise.


All right; I suppose any other interpretation would be twisting it a little, yes.


And? Deforestation will go on; I can't think of anyone better to talk to about its effects than the people who do it and deal with it on a daily basis.


Giving people potentially opposed to the very aims of a committee a significant say in the actions of that committee seems to me rather hazardous. I wouldn't see them as "experts" so much as one-side pressure groups. Maybe this point simply needs expanding; "suitably broad and representative" leaves it open to, well, anyone and anything.

Hrr. Committee names are a little silly, but I'm finding myself wondering about this. Possible metagame/mechanics. I'm not seeing how this would translate to ++PF in member nations.

Blast. I was kinda hoping I'd get to throw around the name "WHOP" every so often simply because of its amusing sound.

Good point.
Very good point.
And now I'm deeply tempted to draft a resolution of some kind that includes an organisation with the acronym of 'KERPOW'... ;)

Sooooo many potential joke proposals being thought up here, I can tell.

I think so, yes. Otherwise it's not clear who the "independent" outside parties are, or what makes them independent.
Edited.

Still, isn't it obvious by default? If something's criminal then it's illegal. Otherwise it wouldn't be legally considered criminal.
No, you misunderstand. At present, one can remain a UN official even if one has committed a criminal offence. I want to change that. Obviously, the acts are still illlegal, but there are plenty of politicians, public servants, and so on, with criminal records. I don't think that's suitable for the United Nations and its officials.

Giving people potentially opposed to the very aims of a committee a significant say in the actions of that committee seems to me rather hazardous. I wouldn't see them as "experts" so much as one-side pressure groups. Maybe this point simply needs expanding; "suitably broad and representative" leaves it open to, well, anyone and anything.
I can't expand it too much. Committee composition borders on MetaGaming; besides, I can't amend past committees that didn't mandate it. I think by leaving it vague, it's actually open to abuse the other way.

I suppose what I was thinking of was things like the UN Educational Committee being composed entirely of teachers. Great, but do they necessarily consider the funding ramifications of their policies? What if the UNCoESB committee is staffed entirely by mammalians, who don't care about insects?

(Argh, not mammalians...mammaliologists or whatever. Bah!)

That's not something we can really enforce, because the UN proposal rules make it difficult to set committee compositions. It was just intended as a general line, and not as something that could necessarily be enforced in practice - it's a guideline, nothing more.

Hrr. Committee names are a little silly, but I'm finding myself wondering about this. Possible metagame/mechanics. I'm not seeing how this would translate to ++PF in member nations.
Well, I will change the committee names to something more sensible. I was going to go with UN Ethics Committee, but I remembered we already had a UNEC.

As for metagaming/mechanics, sorry to push, but which bits? I'm quite prepared to believe some are illegal, but at the same time, I hope something along these lines is doable, so I'd like to get it legal if possible.

As for the category, I agree it's not perfect, but my argument would be it "increases democratic freedoms" because it increases the efficiency of the UN (which is a democratic organization). It makes it more likely that resolutions will be enforced as decided by the vote, and not corrupted. Perhaps it should be Mild, though.

As for metagaming/mechanics, sorry to push, but which bits? I'm quite prepared to believe some are illegal, but at the same time, I hope something along these lines is doable, so I'd like to get it legal if possible.

As for the category[...]The two are somewhat related, honestly. Where I'm leaning is that the UN legislating itself, as opposed to member nations is something of a Metagaming violation. I'll have to ponder.

The two are somewhat related, honestly. Where I'm leaning is that the UN legislating itself, as opposed to member nations is something of a Metagaming violation. I'll have to ponder.
Ok, that's reasonable. I'll let you ponder, but I will point out there's precedent (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=87) - although I think that came before the rules revision, so it might not be applicable.

I'd vote in favor of this, but the loopholes at present are...horrible. They need to be sorted if this proposal is going to be respected.

I belive that this will need to go under a lot of scrutiny to make sure it is done correctly. Any loopholes at all is going to be a very big problem because of the power of being able to get rid of another person. also the name "We Hate Ourselves Committee" is very bad and will lower morale and make the people have to be paid more probably because of lack of respect. I suggest a change(i have this feeling I already posted this for some reason.

We have just one quick comment on a particular provision of this very interesting draft:

- to make available all such records upon request, with the exception of any information prejudicial to national security or trade secrets, which may be reserved for not more than thirty years;

We could not accept the imposition of any specific time limit on protection of information in the interest of national security. In the mythical land of the US, the government has tried time after time, for more than thirty years, to set artificial, time-based limits on the duration of security classification. None of these systems has ever worked worth spit. They fail because people recognize that they are unrealistic. The sensitivity of information diminishes and disappears with occurrence of events and changes in the geopolitical situation. It is not a function of the passage of time alone. A system for downgrading and declassification must be event-driven, not time-driven, if it is to make sense.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We have just one quick comment on a particular provision of this very interesting draft:
Thank you for the comment. I admit the inclusion of a time limit is entirely arbitrary. Could you suggest an alternate wording, that would allow an "event-driven" release of information?

I belive that this will need to go under a lot of scrutiny to make sure it is done correctly. Any loopholes at all is going to be a very big problem because of the power of being able to get rid of another person. also the name "We Hate Ourselves Committee" is very bad and will lower morale and make the people have to be paid more probably because of lack of respect. I suggest a change(i have this feeling I already posted this for some reason.

The first post says that the names of the protocols and committee are jokes.

I know, because the second post was me being saaaaaaaad.

stupid me I missed that:eek:

Good point.
Very good point.
And now I'm deeply tempted to draft a resolution of some kind that includes an organisation with the acronym of 'KERPOW'... ;)
That's nothing, if Nuclear Armaments hadn't reached quorum and passed when it did, it was going to be renamed Nuclear Armament Possession Statute. Of course that wouldn't fit in the title box so the acronym (N.A.P.S.) was going to be listed there.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

KERPOW? That's nothing. I remember the days of UNSEAWORTHY.

Ok, that's reasonable. I'll let you ponder, but I will point out there's precedent (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=87) - although I think that came before the rules revision, so it might not be applicable.Heh. I was afraid that there was precedent. I swear... consistancy is a right pain at times.

Still, keep drafting and I'll flag down Fris when I get a chance.

KERPOW? That's nothing. I remember the days of UNSEAWORTHY.

I've worked out what 'KERPOW' would stand for, and almost finished drafting the associated proposal. I think that it would be lgeal, and that some of the national governments represented here might like it...

'KERPOW' = 'Kings, Emperors and Reigning Princes, Organised Worldswide'


***************************************

The government of St Edmundan Antarctic praises the general purpose of this proposal, but would like to know just whose definition of "criminal activity" would be used in conjunction with clause #2...

The government of St Edmundan Antarctic praises the general purpose of this proposal, but would like to know just whose definition of "criminal activity" would be used in conjunction with clause #2...
I'm going to be honest: I'm not sure. Whatever jurisdiction applies to UN officials.

Perhaps I’m missing something here and please feel free to comment if I am Gruen, but is there not a long standing general consensus UN staff work to the best of their ability and in the interest of the body?

Does this proposal not undermine that principle?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Teldia

Reducing corruption. GOod MoRe Money for me.

Perhaps I’m missing something here and please feel free to comment if I am Gruen, but is there not a long standing general consensus UN staff work to the best of their ability and in the interest of the body?

Does this proposal not undermine that principle?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Teldia
Sorry to respond in a dichotomy, but:

OOC - yeah, I know we have to assume the gnomes will be fair. If we can't go into detail on committees, then it's only reasonable to assume they will broadly do their jobs. If not, then we should start repealing every mention of the Free Trade Committee...so I understand that this may seem pointless. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with formalising the idea that UN officials do and must work in the general interest of the UN. Whilst there is a "long standing general consensus" in certain communities, I have yet to see such faith in committees spread to off-site forums.

IC - Quite. In which case, the UN officials will have little trouble complying with this. Furthermore, we don't see it as undermining them. However, if the tone is deemed to overly negative, it could well be rephrased so as to place more emphasis on rewarding individuals who serve the general aims of efficiency and combat corruption.