NationStates Jolt Archive

AFFIRMING the national sovereignty of all member nations.

RECALLING Syria's longstanding intervention and occupation of neighboring Lebanon.

REALIZING the dangers of imperialist aggression.

BANS foreign powers from ilegally directing and executing the powers of a duly elected national government without the expressed consent of that government.

DECRIES any attempt of a nation to act as the proxy government of any other nation.

DENOUNCES the use of any coercive act that would infringe on the sovereignty and the civil liberties and rights of the people of another nation.

HEREBY CALLS FOR:

1. Any such action to be immediately brought to the United Nations Security Council.

2. Violators to be prosecuted via the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the victim nation's
own national judicial system.

3. The United Nations to immediately send representatives and/or multinational forces to enforce
the decision(s) of the Security Council and/or the ICJ

STRONGLY URGES:

4. Member states to respect the right to self-determination.


Please do not hesitate to add what you think may need to be added/deleted. I will add you as a co-author. Thanks

The whole thing needs to be deleted, I'm assumiung that Syria and Lebanon are referring to the RL places which is illegal, and the NSUN also doesn't have a security council or any international court.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't understand. No offense, I'm really just trying to understand this. Why be in the UN if National Sovereignty is of such importance? UN is the very opposite of national sovereignty, isn't it? I'm really fairly new at this, and I really don't mean to offend, if it does. And, what are Syria and Lebanon? (OOC: I do know you can't talk about the real world in Resolutions and such)

The Wolf Guardians']I don't understand. No offense, I'm really just trying to understand this. Why be in the UN if National Sovereignty is of such importance? UN is the very opposite of national sovereignty, isn't it? I'm really fairly new at this, and I really don't mean to offend, if it does. And, what are Syria and Lebanon? (OOC: I do know you can't talk about the real world in Resolutions and such)

National Sovereignty as referred to in this proposal is guaranteed under Article 1 of UNR #49: Rights and Duties of UN States in which it effectively states that no nation is required to answer to any other nation in any of its decision making.

The argument is applicable, even if the context and structure of the UN is not.

Here's my anti "national sovereignty" argument when people bring that against the UN, and the reason I'm so confused.

§ 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.
To me this says that, if the majority approves of something, then you have no right to invoke "national sovereignty" as an argument. In short, I'm desperately confused.

And that aside, what does this do that UNR 49 does not? And it is illegal because of the real world references, right?

Regardless of the legality of this Proposal, please help me understand the sovereignty issue. And, I'm sorry if I'm being dense.

There is no concept of National Sovereiignty in the NationStates United Nations, nor can there ever be.

Res 49 is primarily a roleplay restatement of the fundamental principles of the game coding. You have sovereignty over your own nation, insofar as the United Nations doesn't choose to take it away from you. That's really about it.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

----------------------------

And, in Official Mode, this puppy's totally illegal and will be deleted, assuming it was actually posted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Thank you, Frisbeeteria, for reaffirming that. But I've read so many posts about a proposal infringing national sovereignty, which doesn't make sense, since the UN is the opposite of national sovereignty. How can a proposal made to the UN be argued against with something contrary to the nature of the UN? Or, without meaning to offend, are these people just crazy? lol

Once again, I know I can be rather dense, and probably am being so right now, so I apologize for that. I also like to know... everything, really. I thank you for your patience.

The Wolf Guardians']Thank you, Frisbeeteria, for reaffirming that. But I've read so many posts about a proposal infringing national sovereignty, which doesn't make sense, since the UN is the opposite of national sovereignty. How can a proposal made to the UN be argued against with something contrary to the nature of the UN? Or, without meaning to offend, are these people just crazy? lol

Once again, I know I can be rather dense, and probably am being so right now, so I apologize for that. I also like to know... everything, really. I thank you for your patience.Let me see if I can explain the principle of National Sovereignty.

In the (American) Federal model of government, different levels of government have unique jurisdictions – not just physically, but logically. These levels of government should not trespass on each others' turf. The States don't issue currency, and the Federal government doesn't regulate regulate incorporation; the States don't establish tariffs, and the Federal government doesn't punish murder. Each area of law is (in theory anyway) managed by one and only one government in any particular place. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work, anyway.

Applying this legal theory to NationStates, the NSUN should regulate those areas of law that nations can not or do not regulate; there is also the sense that it should guarantee fundamental human rights, although this last is sometimes disputed. Thus laws against piracy, laws regulating international currency exchange and commerce, laws regulating the conduct of war, etc., all fall under the authority of the NSUN.

Now, in practice the NSUN can, if it chooses - for it has the power to do so - micromanage the affairs of states, trespassing onto their jurisdictions and generally bossing them about. The various appeals to the principle of National Sovereignty, then, are attempts to uphold the concept of (American-style) Federalism in opposition to those proposed resolutions that violate it. Opponents of National Sovereignty generally dismiss its adherents as kooks; while it's not always the case that such nations want to see all nations forced into a common mold, without any discernible differences between them, they do believe (or seem to believe) that there's nothing wrong with a majority of the NSUN (any majority of the NSUN) doing exactly that, should they vote to do so.

IOW, National Sovereignty is basically a political philosophy; whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you.

The Wolf Guardians']Here's my anti "national sovereignty" argument when people bring that against the UN, and the reason I'm so confused.

To me this says that, if the majority approves of something, then you have no right to invoke "national sovereignty" as an argument. In short, I'm desperately confused.

And that aside, what does this do that UNR 49 does not? And it is illegal because of the real world references, right?

Regardless of the legality of this Proposal, please help me understand the sovereignty issue. And, I'm sorry if I'm being dense.

You absolutely misunderstand my statement. I agree there is no such thing as sovereignty from the UN. That's not what this proposal is about (if you read the fine print, thankyouverymuch)

BANS foreign powers from ilegally directing and executing the powers of a duly elected national government without the expressed consent of that government.

It isn't talking about the UN. It's talking about other governments. You have sovereignty from Forgottenlands, you do not have sovereignty from the UN. That's the difference and that's why the claim to National Sovereignty is valid in this case.

NEXT

To Community Property:
We meet again. So, when people parrot national sovereignty as an excuse against a proposal, what they are saying is that they believe it is something they feel individual nations should handle. Ok, I understand that application. It just seems to me that sometimes (quite often, really), they use it against something I feel is not withing national sovereignty. I recognize that this is my opinion, but the reason I say it is that I think that's what had me confused. I think I get it now. Thank you.

Now, Forgottenlands:
Fine print? Once again, forgive my density, but I read the entire proposal. I do not know to what you are referring. It seems to me to be referring to one government controlling another in this case. And, I feel the "Next" is a trifle condescending. Just my opinion, mind you. All I want to do is understand.

To everyone:
Furthermore, no one answered whether or not this was, in fact, doing nothing that the UNR 49 does not. I quote from UNR49, S1, A1: "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 Proposal does include punishments for offenders, but that is unnecessary in this world, as all UNRs are upheld magically and perfectly, as I understood it. A Resolution simply has to make the rule, and it is enforced without effort. Other than that, I cannot see what this is doing, as its purpose seems to be to keep one nation from controlling another, which is already in place, by the above quote in UNR49.

Regardless, thank you all for helping me understand more or less the point of the whole shebang.

Yes it is a duplication of UNR #49, Article 1

Thank you. All.

so...is this going to get deleted for RL references?

Fris said it would be deleted if submitted.

I think we're done here.

I think we're done here.
Unless you count this version currently submitted.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Greater Osea

Description: AFFIRMING the national sovereignty of all member nations.

REALIZING the dangers of imperialist aggression.

BANS foreign powers from ilegally directing and executing the powers of a duly elected national government without the expressed consent of that government.

DECRIES any attempt of a nation to act as the proxy government of any other nation.

DENOUNCES the use of any coercive act that would infringe on the sovereignty and the civil liberties and rights of the people of another nation.

STRONGLY URGES member states to respect the right to self-determination and self-government.

Still a duplication violation, author.