NationStates Jolt Archive

EMPHASIZING a nation's right for national sovereignty,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the insolvent economies of countless member nations,

EXPRESSING ITS CONCERN at the unnecessary burden Resolution 59 places upon aforementioned nations from increasing productivity, GDP/GNP, and standard of living,

ALARMED at the reduced productivity Resolution 59 inflicts upon member nations due to limited man-hours,

EMPHASIZING that the UN does not possess the right to impose mandatory business regulations upon member nations, due to the violation of national sovereignty,

NOTING the vague language employed throughout Resolution 59, for example, lacking a formal definition for "emergency",

REPEALS Resolution 59

Resolution 59 seriously undermines the efforts of developing nations who need more hours in the workweek for the good of their citizens, and not for the feel-good mentality of an international body.

When that resolution went up to vote, the vote was 8637 to 8526. There obviously was a great deal of controversy over that decision. The decision of the length of a workweek is up to the individual governments, and not a world body like the UN.

And this proposal would help accomplish that.

Would you mind posting the original Resolution here for future reference, so people don't have to go looking for it?

I also want to say that I really can't stand when people bring up how closely the votes were cast for or against a Resolution. It really doesn't matter. Either it passed or it didn't and either the Resolution is bad enough to warrant a Repeal or not, and the Repeal good enough to pass or not. The numbers don't matter.

This so called "right to National Sovereignty", can you point to where it's given to all nations?

Many come on preaching about that, none have yet been able to supply me an answer. Certainly, I've seen an argument from the fellow delegation from Ausserland that counters my question (I refuted it, but that's besides the point), but not one member who came here preaching that their nation's right to sovereignty is being violated has been able to show me where that right was given. I ask this question because you seem to know that they have this right and I would like to see where this knowledge comes from.

Anyways, other thoughts about the repeal:

NOTING the vague language employed throughout Resolution 59, for example, lacking a formal definition for "emergency",

So? Then go and abuse the vagueness and stop bothering us about how it impedes your ability to operate. Stop looking at the gift horse in the mouth.

EMPHASIZING that the UN does not possess the right to impose mandatory business regulations upon member nations, due to the violation of national sovereignty,

Why does the UN not possess the right. Certainly, there are many people that believe it SHOULDN'T impose mandatory business regulations, but how does the UN not have the right? Wouldn't logic dictate that the very fact the UN was able to legislate, pass the legislation AND enforce it proves that it has that right?

The Freeland of Senthen finds no value in this repeal. Wages are already low enough, without requiring people to work longer hours. Longer hours, would mean fewer jobs; raising unemployment. High unemployment means more social welfare outlays, meaning higher taxes. As it is, most of our citizens find it very hard to find the time to put in a 40 hour work week when they need to tend their home gardens and walk to and from work, in most cases. We fear if the proposal were removed, that some one might introduce a 20 hour work week, which would truely cause instability in the realm.
--
George Tree: UN Ambassador of the Freeland of Senthen

As we progress towards tearing down the walls that divide us, we must be sure that we have a level playing field. This resolution aids free trade by ensuring all nations are held to the same standards in terms of workweeks. The Congressional Republic doesn't support this repeal.

Robert Bobson, with argument credit going to Thomas L. Friedman
UN Officer (Bobson, not Friedman)

Wouldn't logic dictate that the very fact the UN was able to legislate, pass the legislation AND enforce it proves that it has that right?

No, logic dictates nothing of the sort. I have the ability to start, operate, AND use my car to run my brother over, but that hardly implies that I have any right to do so.

No, logic dictates nothing of the sort. I have the ability to start, operate, AND use my car to run my brother over, but that hardly implies that I have any right to do so.

And this right was removed by.....whom? Oh yes, a government ABOVE you. What's limiting the UN?

On a different note, you drive your car and if you start telling the police "hey, I'm driving without a license on the IA95", they're going to pull you over, and charge you. The UN has been charged with what? And by whom?

And this right was removed by.....whom? Oh yes, a government ABOVE you. What's limiting the UN?

1. I never had a right removed from me because I have no right to run over my brother with a car. I never had that right to begin with, so it can hardly have been removed, obviously.

If you'll look at a previous question you asked in this discussion, you'll note that you asked where a right was given. The implication of that query being that we have to be given rights, not that we have them as a natural state of affairs. Rights are legal contructs that we apply, not a set of characteristics that we have.

2. If we follow your train of thought and allow that the UN is the highest level of government and has no legislative or enforcement power that is greater than itself, it seems fallacious to suggest that because the UN has the might that it also has the right to do whatever it has the ability do within the contraints of its own structure. Might does not make right.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario in which the UN does not exist in NationStates and no other international bodies do either. Suddenly nations are the highest level of government. Would you agree that because nations are the highest level of government in this scenario that they have the right to do whatever they have the ability to do? For example, restricting the liberties of their citizens unduly and micromanaging their affairs?

On a different note, you drive your car and if you start telling the police "hey, I'm driving without a license on the IA95", they're going to pull you over, and charge you. The UN has been charged with what? And by whom?

Stupidity, abuse of power, impracticality, herd mentality, low quality, structural flaws, etc. By a number of folks.

Boy... From a 40 hour work week to the philosophy surrounding rights, who gets them, where they come from, and who gets to take them away...

Can we stick to the core of the matter?

Boy... From a 40 hour work week to the philosophy surrounding rights, who gets them, where they come from, and who gets to take them away...

Can we stick to the core of the matter?

We're just starting to get to the core of the matter.

And it's a relevant examination of the issues surrounding the first argument in the repeal under discussion.

This so called "right to National Sovereignty", can you point to where it's given to all nations?The fact, maybe, that we may come and go from this union as we please, and there is nothing forcing any of us to stay in this organization and abide indefinitely by its rules? It's a hard fact we discovered when President Fernanda pulled us from this covenant.

... You may have dispatched the "national sovereignty" argument right off, by pointing out it is illegal, but no, you had to grandstand. Can't say I am surprised.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

P.S. As to the "core of the matter," we believe Mr. Riley already weighed in (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10637275&postcount=36) some time ago as to whether this resolution ought get the ol' heave-ho. To this brilliant oration I have nothing to add.

The government of Telidia do not support a repeal of the 40 hour week. This legislation has been enacted since May 23rd, 2004 and more than two years on we have seen Telidia’s economy prosper despite having regulation in this area. The doom and gloom about the meltdown of the world economy with the passing of this legislation seem not to have come true. Planes still fly, delegates still manage to find the way to the UN and life goes on.

We have in fact very little labour regulation within this body so lets move on from this discussion. We already had repeal attempts of this legislation, it failed. Do we really have to go down this road again and hash up all the old arguments?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affair
HM Government of Telidia

The fact, maybe, that we may come and go from this union as we please, and there is nothing forcing any of us to stay in this organization and abide indefinitely by its rules? It's a hard fact we discovered when President Fernanda pulled us from this covenant.I was going to say something about that. When we join the UN, our national soverignty is compromised. When we leave the UN our national soverignty is restored.

Ultimately, the only element of national soverignty that is absolutely preserved is the right to leave the UN. Everything else is open to debate and vulnerable to international law.

This so called "right to National Sovereignty", can you point to where it's given to all nations?

It does not have to be given. It is assumed because it is inherent with the existance of a nation.

So? Then go and abuse the vagueness and stop bothering us about how it impedes your ability to operate. Stop looking at the gift horse in the mouth.

So if the UN has done something wrong, you encourage member nations to play wordgames to be able to violate the law? Does the UN want its member nations encouraging others to make loopholes in the law?

Wouldn't logic dictate that the very fact the UN was able to legislate, pass the legislation AND enforce it proves that it has that right?

You are mistaking power for right. Your logic is quite faulty. The fact that something did in fact happen clearly does not prove that someone had the right to do it.

Planes still fly, delegates still manage to find the way to the UN and life goes on.

This resolution isn't about the people well off enough to fly or important enough to be in a high political position. It's about the masses in countries who aren't as well off who need the additional workforce. Many of these (you know, the ones you liberal members especially pretend to care about so much) need extra hours or so to provide for their families also. The poor benefit AND the economy benefits!

Instead of repealing it completely, why not alter it. You don't want employers exploiting the poor and having people stucking working 12 hours a day 7 days a week as happend in many countries industrial-age beginnings. But why not suggest 40 hours but let an individual country lower or raise that number so long as it does not exceed, say, 50?

It does not have to be given. It is assumed because it is inherent with the existance of a nation.



So if the UN has done something wrong, you encourage member nations to play wordgames to be able to violate the law? Does the UN want its member nations encouraging others to make loopholes in the law?



You are mistaking power for right. Your logic is quite faulty. The fact that something did in fact happen clearly does not prove that someone had the right to do it.



This resolution isn't about the people well off enough to fly or important enough to be in a high political position. It's about the masses in countries who aren't as well off who need the additional workforce. Many of these (you know, the ones you liberal members especially pretend to care about so much) need extra hours or so to provide for their families also. The poor benefit AND the economy benefits!

Instead of repealing it completely, why not alter it. You don't want employers exploiting the poor and having people stucking working 12 hours a day 7 days a week as happend in many countries industrial-age beginnings. But why not suggest 40 hours but let an individual country lower or raise that number so long as it does not exceed, say, 50?

Listening to the address from the Myso-Kamian representative a frown of confusion soon became apparent on the young ambassador. Confusion because it was not at all clear to whom they were making the address! Perhaps their office simply got the quotes jumbled up or maybe the UN translators were taking a tea break somewhere again. After all confusion was no stranger to these halls. In any case Lydia thought it might be a good idea to address the situation and walked over to the Myso-Kamian representative.

“Erm, my apologies I’m not sure if there was some confusion but it was a little unclear to whom you were addressing? Perhaps tagging quotes with member names might help the confusion when quoting several texts” she stated smiling.

“Oh yes before I forget, as for my quote. My comment was simply to state that despite the passing of the forty-hour week little has changed. Also amendments are not permitted, resolutions must be repealed first.”

The comments were addressed to me

It does not have to be given. It is assumed because it is inherent with the existance of a nation.

The assumption is based upon what knowledge? Where does it stem from? In not the UN's FAQ, nor a single passed resolution can we find a single statement saying the nation has sovereignty. Sovereignty is a concept that nations have developed for themselves, but with the founding of the NSUN, the sovereignty of the UN was put into doubt. The UN rules over national laws and was granted this power by the Great Max Barry (all praise the almighty) himself, bringing the question of sovereignty to one that isn't, truly, a default fact. Sovereignty indicates that when the question of what is and isn't legal, who holds the highest or overruling power. For members within the UN, it is the UN's own books. For non-members, it is themselves. They who remain outside of the UN's influence hold sovereignty. Those that don't answer to the UN.

(And that is my response to the Kennyite ambassador as well).

OOC: In real life, the nation holds sovereignty because the nation can override the RL UN or refuse any one of the RLUN's mandates. However, this is not the RLUN, and you cannot just ignore her mandates.

So if the UN has done something wrong, you encourage member nations to play wordgames to be able to violate the law? Does the UN want its member nations encouraging others to make loopholes in the law?

No. If the ambassador is going to complain about the UN being too interfering, indicating that something is so vague that it actually doesn't hinder you as much is hardly an argument. If the UN does something wrong and needs to improve it, we can make a repeal saying that "this loophole exists thus meaning that workers are being exploited, blahdi blah blah".

You are mistaking power for right. Your logic is quite faulty. The fact that something did in fact happen clearly does not prove that someone had the right to do it.

Actually (and this is also my answer to the Hotroddian ambassador), a right is something you are permitted to do. A responsibility is something you SHOULD do. The UN has the right to interfere within national laws - it was given this right by the Great Max Barry. Whether it has the responsibility or not is disputable.

This is a very good resolution. It has actulay pretty vague enforcement policy beetween 40-80 hours a day so this does not put too many retrictions beetween these time. Stopping people having jobs of more then 80 hours a week is not a very small time span at all. This is somewhere beetween 11-12 hours a day so when you add eating and sleeping you are not doing much else other then work. So this is a very good resolution and there is no reason to repeal it.

These are not strict but actualy good time rules to follow. So do not significantly hinder the economy of countries. Working for longer then this is also generaly very unproductive and people snap commonly under the pressure and lack of fun in there lives which is not good for anyone.