NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING Resolution #83 - EON Convention on Genocide,

AFFIRMING the stance of the United Nations in preventing genocide and ensuring essential human rights,

RECOGNIZING the authority of the Pretenama Panel, as defined in Resolution #83, to try and sentence individuals implicated in the commission of genocide, the sponsoring nation

NOTES WITH REGRET the ineffectiveness of the Pretenama Panel, as convened under the auspices of Resolution #92 - Humanitarian Intervention, to form a suitable intervention force to rapidly and effectively stem the tide of ongoing genocide

HAVING CONSIDERED the immense potential for abuse given the text of that resolution

EMPHASIZING the need for a decisive and timely response to accusations of genocide or human rights abuses

SUPPORTING independent diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions by interested nations in combatting human rights abuses

SOLEMNLY AFFIRMING the role of the Pretenama Panel in bringing those responsible for or complicit in acts of genocide to justice

DECLARES Resolution #92 to be null and void

I last modified this in April 2005 - it may need significant changes (possibly the removal of all language referring to TPP crisis of Feb 2005). I'd like to use this, if possible, as a springboard for actually repealing Res. 92.

There's been a recent Mod ruling, in another case, that proposals shouldn't refer to NS events by their RL dates...

It wasn't a ruling. It's just completely unnecessary.

When was the first attempt?

When was the first attempt?

April of last year.

proposals shouldn't refer to NS events by their RL dates...

At the time, it was useful to point out the failure of the UN (in the form of roleplay) to bolster support for the repeal. It may be less important now.

[using RL dates is] just completely unnecessary

I would tend to disagree in this instance only because the UN does keep a calendar. But if the official policy is to eliminate all RL references to dates, I can reword the repeal. For that matter, if the dates distract from the repeal, it would be best to remove them even if they don't violate current procedures.

I would remove the dates and shorten it to: NOTES WITH REGRET the ineffectiveness of the Pretenama Panel, as convened under the auspices of Resolution #92 - Humanitarian Intervention

It will be just as effective and convincing without the dates included.

I like the suggestion. At the same time, I definitely want to expand the bit about potential abuses of a UN-led military force, as I think that is becoming the primary point of contention at this time.

Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.
That is interesting because that convention is the basis of Humanitarian Intervention whitch does talk about invading other countries. I am reading over the two and am not sure of if this is important or not. This may in effect actualy stop humanitarian intervention resolution from doing anything.

Also it could help the resolution if you do something similar to what the world heritage list repeal is attempting to do.(not in the repeal but in the TG and campaining in general) Where you show the specifc examples. (links)

For that matter, if the dates distract from the repeal, it would be best to remove them even if they don't violate current procedures.I haven't made any kind of official decree on it, but I think they detract. Setting aside the fact that nations are in different times (the Hack is out around 2070 or so), I just don't see the point. Yes, the UN uses dates, but if someone wants a date, they can just go look.

It's not a mandate, it's just... a pet peeve. And I think something like Iron Felix suggested flows better.

I haven't made any kind of official decree on it, but I think they detract. Setting aside the fact that nations are in different times (the Hack is out around 2070 or so), I just don't see the point. Yes, the UN uses dates, but if someone wants a date, they can just go look.

It's not a mandate, it's just... a pet peeve. And I think something like Iron Felix suggested flows better.

The RL UN uses dates to reference previous resolutions ... but in this case I actually agree with you that they detract. The RL UN uses them because: (1) they adopt multiple resolutions on one day (IIRC sometimes adopting over one hundred in a year), and (2) they recycle titles, so the dates help to distinguish between the "End the US embargo on Cuba, c. 1981" vs. the "End the US embargo on Cuba, c. 1982".

This is one of the times I'm advocating we depart with the RL UN convention ... even if in the past I've used the date convention. It was when Hack politely suggested I drop the date in the Freedom of Assembly proposal that I understood his point.

Agreed. References to specific dates were deleted in the initial post.

I think the repeal text takes the wrong approach. It seems like it concentrates too much on The Eon Convention.

Wouldn't it be better to spell out one (or more) specific way(s) in which an abuse might be perpetrated? For example, noting the compositional blargh of TPP means it could potentially be loaded in favour of one side, thus leading to an unfair decision.

An alternate approach would be to play the Iraq card.

I think the repeal text takes the wrong approach. It seems like it concentrates too much on The Eon Convention.

Wouldn't it be better to spell out one (or more) specific way(s) in which an abuse might be perpetrated? For example, noting the compositional blargh of TPP means it could potentially be loaded in favour of one side, thus leading to an unfair decision.

An alternate approach would be to play the Iraq card.

Agreed, to a point. It is likely that when I wrote the original, the UN was far fluffier than it is today. Then again, "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom'" failed miserably because some people could barely read past the title. A resolution called "Repeal 'Humanitarian Intervention'" is likely to suffer a similar fate - hence my emphasis on the benefits of EON. Would it be possible to add clauses containing the likelihood of abuse or does the proposal need a radical shift in focus entirely?

Then again, "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom'" failed miserably because some people could barely read past the title.
Some, hah, try most.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have to say I don't support a repeal of "Humanitarian Intervention", because I believe that it was written as a means of giving force to the Eon Convention and since the need to bring any matter deemed as requiring intervention to the attention of the Pretenama Panel and U.N. is stipulated, it would seem to me that the problem lies with the inactivity of the PTP. As such, I would venture to suggest that perhaps the PTP should be re-activated and given a higher profile, rather than repealing this resolution.

The other problem that I have with the repeal lies with:

SUPPORTING independent diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions by interested nations in combatting human rights abuses

As I see it, these alone, whilst useful, cannot quite bear the same pressure or moral force held by intervention. I agree fully with the notion that we shouldn't all be acting as Knights Errant, that would be a recipe for chaos, but I wouldn't want the U.N. to discard the right to promote just and humane intervention, where lives can be saved and suffering alleviated, even if this should only be a last resort.

I am aware I sound very idealistic in saying this, but I am a man of ideals at heart.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I have to say I don't support a repeal of "Humanitarian Intervention", because I believe that it was written as a means of giving force to the Eon Convention and since the need to bring any matter deemed as requiring intervention to the attention of the Pretenama Panel and U.N. is stipulated, it would seem to me that the problem lies with the inactivity of the PTP. As such, I would venture to suggest that perhaps the PTP should be re-activated and given a higher profile, rather than repealing this resolution.

The Republic of Krioval stands against humanitarian abuses of all kinds. However, "Humanitarian Intervention" appears to grant the UN the right to convene an ad hoc invasion force that can be used against non-UN states. Thus, it very likely violates the limits of this international body - the Republic's primary objection. That the Pretenama Panel's forays into military action were dismal failures is a secondary concern.

Simply put, the Republic would not want to endanger the legitimacy of the United Nations by condoning illegal acts committed by this agency.

As I see it, these alone, whilst useful, cannot quite bear the same pressure or moral force held by intervention. I agree fully with the notion that we shouldn't all be acting as Knights Errant, that would be a recipe for chaos, but I wouldn't want the U.N. to discard the right to promote just and humane intervention, where lives can be saved and suffering alleviated, even if this should only be a last resort.

The Republic would have no objections to a resolution that strongly suggests international cooperation in stemming human rights abuses, but the UN cannot possess a military force. To this end, the Republic would be willing to assist in the drafting of two resolutions - one to increase detection and reporting of human rights abuses, and another to increase funding for national police and military agencies with the strongest recommendation that such forces be used to ensure that the international community is adequately respecting civil rights.

Ultimately, however, the onus rests on individual nations and coalitions to perform a direct military intervention in troubled regions. The UN cannot involve itself in every war.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval