NationStates Jolt Archive

:confused:
As I have read the various Resolutions of the UN, I am unclear as to how to interpret the following clause in

Rights and Duties of UN States
Resolution #49:

"Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. "

Upon my initial readings of this clause, I was driven to attempt to proffer my own resolution suggestions and/or repeals.

Then I read it again and I wonder how the Nations interpret this clause.

Does this clause mean that I have the right to EXPECT or REQUEST a United Nations Defense (from the entire collective UN Nations) against aggressors?

I would like to hope that it does.

If so, what is the procedure for requesting a collective self-defense against aggressor nations? If not, why would the UN not want to have this "strength-in-numbers"/"Musketeers" potential? Should not the UN be the STRONGEST world entity, with the goal of the complete elimination of military conflict?

How do you interpret this clause? Can we make it stronger? Do we want stronger language?

I read this simply as permitting member nations to defend themselves. In no way does it require the UN to act on the behalf of member states.

Being as to how the UN doesn't have any force of its own, nor any way to enforce the activity of the remaing UN nations to do much of anything. it'd have to be your fourth poll choice.

^
^
^
What Fris said.

It means that UN nations may voluntarily enter into multi-lateral defense agreements. It does not mean that we can pass a resolution forcing all 29,247 members to take part in such an arangement. The Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding] states:
Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

I understand the rules of the UN and game say "no World Police".

I guess what I'm saying is that either the rules or the Resolution need to be clarified.

If the statement reads:
"Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."

it can appear that a UN Nation has the right to receive a collective self-defense.

I, for one, would like to invoke my right to have all UN States defend my tiny little nation against any future incursions and/or military aggression.

If, in fact, each member state would have this right, we could see quite a blessed peace. Who would dare attack any member nation if they knew that 29,247 Nations would put "the smack-down" on them? In fact, who would not want to be part of such a world organization?

No, it gives you the right to create your own treaties and invoke them. It doesn't force every UN nation to come charging to your aid.

it can appear that a UN Nation has the right to receive a collective self-defense.
You have that right, but nobody said anything about the UN doing the legwork. If you want 'collective self-defense', you're welcome to set up mutual aid alliances with as many of the 29,247 nations as you like. Better get busy.

Also, allow me to point out Article 5, which allows every UN nation the Right NOT to participate in any war they wish to ignore. They have the Right to turn you down.

You can't look at line items in isolation. It's the whole package that's the law.

Also, there's always a catch. Considering how much the UN meddles with national laws that aren't any of their business, do you RELLAY want to give them similar control over your military affairs? Imagine having to go through the kind of debates found in this forum every time you had to go to war! :eek:

Being as to how the UN doesn't have any force of its own, nor any way to enforce the activity of the remaing UN nations to do much of anything. it'd have to be your fourth poll choice.

Actually, options three and four both apply.

I picked all four! Yay improperly set up polls! ^_^

I picked all four! Yay improperly set up polls! ^_^

How very modly of you... :p

The poll was set up so that you could select all four options just to further make the point.

You can read clause #5 of Resolution #49 to mean any or all of the poll choices. And this is what concerns me.

When laws can be read to mean more than one thing, the law is weak.

The poll was set up so that you could select all four options just to further make the point.

You can read clause #5 of Resolution #49 to mean any or all of the poll choices. And this is what concerns me.

When laws can be read to mean more than one thing, the law is weak.

No, you can't read them however you like. In this case, the rules of the game cut out the first two options.

Obviously, I am new to this... But...

The way I read Article 5, then, it would seem that War can not happen in the world of NationStates if only one Nation wishes to engage in war?

So - as long as I never respond to another Nation that I agree to be at War with them, I won't ever be at war? Does this mean I won't ever be attacked, or does it just mean that the UN won't recognize an unprovoked attack as war unless I respond militarily?

Its a terribly designed resolution that actually means nothing. You can't do anything you couldn't do anyway and it allows nothing extra which couldn't (and aso won't) be worked out in a bilateral situation. The UN in this game is a farce and should only be used to prevent it from upping your tax rate.

HJ

True, Options 1 & 2 of the Poll go against game rules; but this is due to the technical limitations of the poll. I couldn't squash in enough characters.

While the UN doesn't have Military Forces of its own, nor will it "Police" the world, the current rules could be interpreted in such a way that all UN MEMBER-Nations could be required to fulfill the goals of options 1 & 2.

But, if we just want to UN to be a club of like-minded Nation leaders, that's OK by me.

Its a terribly designed resolution that actually means nothing. You can't do anything you couldn't do anyway and it allows nothing extra which couldn't (and aso won't) be worked out in a bilateral situation. The UN in this game is a farce and should only be used to prevent it from upping your tax rate.

HJ

Wow...that makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Wow...that makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich.

If I had any room in my sig, I would add that line.

I once proposed an idea for a UN military alliance...the idea being that 29,000 nations and change could certainly, at the very least, ensure the well-being and safety of every UN member state. It got deleted for an unrelated game mechanics reason, but the idea of a UN military alliance is a decent one. However, there are a few things we have to watch for:

--No UN army. I wouldn't want to create one anyway; national armies and such are perfectly acceptable for this. Frankly, sending in every member of the IHP Marine Corps (about 900,000 by my last count) would be fearsome to most, considering they are the cream of the crop (well, except for the Black Berets) but none would want to be in any UN military force. I am sure that the top-notch soldiers and Marines of other nations feel the same.

--We need an effective deterrent for UN member states who violate this. Ejection from the UN isn't workable; a guaranteed invasion is. Especially if some of the biggest, ugliest, best-trained states are behind the alliance.

--We need to find a way to make sure that someone - ANYONE - will come to the aid of a nation who's invaded. So if we don't really care for the Rogue nation of Whatthefuckistan, but they're in the UN, we have to make sure that the Dictatorship of Jerks on Steroids can't just come in and steal all of Whatthefuckistan's precious cheese sculptures without some big uglies coming in and helping out (should Whatthefuckistan not be able to fend off Jerks on Steroids themselves, or should it be too costly for them to do so.) So maybe some kind of bribery for assistance, or maybe the right to open up a fast-food restaurant in the capital (try the new Super Cheez Nacho Platter at the House of Tasty Stuff, BTW) after the invasion is repelled. After all, we're in the same boat; we might as well make something of it.

creamed Black Berets ... guaranteed biggest, ugliest, states ... Whatthefuckistan ... cheese sculptures ... big uglies ... Super Cheez Nacho Platter ... we're in the same boat; we might as well make something of it.
You've really put a face on Whatthefuckistan that I won't soon forget. Thanks for ... ummm ... clarifying that situation.

You've really put a face on Whatthefuckistan that I won't soon forget. Thanks for ... ummm ... clarifying that situation.

You're welcome, Mr. Rove. You have a bright future ahead of you in political advertisement. Just remember, the administration never said it's necessary to Strategically Time All Yearly Tactical Happenings to Ease Casualties and Open Up Reasonable Strategical Exercises. Sorry, had an out-of-thread experience.

You're welcome, Mr. Rove. You have a bright future ahead of you in political advertisement. Just remember, the administration never said it's necessary to Strategically Time All Yearly Tactical Happenings to Ease Casualties and Open Up Reasonable Strategical Exercises. Sorry, had an out-of-thread experience.

Nicely done.

The poll was set up so that you could select all four options just to further make the point.Except that selecting all four creates the impossible situation of the voter believing that some and all of the UN nations will, will not, and cannot help any other UN nation.

Except that selecting all four creates the impossible situation of the voter believing that some and all of the UN nations will, will not, and cannot help any other UN nation.

Someone returning to this thread more than once might certainly end up believing each scenario.

It's called "being confused;" the original reason for my post. The Resolution is worded in such a way that it takes a thread to unravel the intent. And even then, we'll still not agree on what the role of the UN ought to be.

Sad to say, people often believe the last thing they're told; if the source seems authoritative enough.

People will vote for or against a candidate based on the last advertisement they just heard.

So, why would you think it impossible that one person could come back to this thread and not genuinely believe that each poll scenario is possible?

The Resolution is worded in such a way that it takes a thread to unravel the intent.

As it happpens, there were three.

Declaration on Rights and Duties of NationStates (DISCUSSION: Rights and Duties of UN States)
DRAFT: Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=307015)
DISCUSSION: Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=306349)

A forum search can often turn up all sorts of relevant information that's been discussed in great detail. Try it sometime.

Also useful can be NSwiki: the article (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States) on this resolution is quite full and helpful.

It's called "being confused;" the original reason for my post. The Resolution is worded in such a way that it takes a thread to unravel the intent. And even then, we'll still not agree on what the role of the UN ought to be.Then perhaps your poll shouldn't have been self-contradictory, ne? Allowing people to vote for everything isn't going to clear up any confusion when a vote for all four not only doesn't make sense, but is paradox generating.

Its a terribly designed resolution that actually means nothing. You can't do anything you couldn't do anyway and it allows nothing extra which couldn't (and aso won't) be worked out in a bilateral situation. The UN in this game is a farce and should only be used to prevent it from upping your tax rate.

HJ

Have you actually read R&D of UN Nations?

Its a terribly designed resolution that actually means nothing. You can't do anything you couldn't do anyway and it allows nothing extra which couldn't (and aso won't) be worked out in a bilateral situation.
Have you actually read R&D of UN Nations?
Exeterina actually has a valid point, Kivisto. The resolution wasn't designed to have active clauses. It was designed from the very start to function as the equivalent of a UN Charter, and to act as a benchmark of sorts for both other resolutions and for roleplay.

It's an IC acknowledgement of OOC rules, and that's really all it was intended to be.

Exeterina actually has a valid point, Kivisto. The resolution wasn't designed to have active clauses. It was designed from the very start to function as the equivalent of a UN Charter, and to act as a benchmark of sorts for both other resolutions and for roleplay.

It's an IC acknowledgement of OOC rules, and that's really all it was intended to be.

What I was getting at is exactly that, though. The very fact that it was intended as an informal charter, an IC nod at OOC rules. It does a great job of it. No, there is nothing mandating or imposing in it, but that hardly makes it a "terribly designed resolution". If anything it serves as an IC way for us to aknowledge some of the rules, instead of referring to the rules of the game in OOC snippets in an IC debate.

While I agree that it has no real force, and doesn't change anything, I can't agree that it is terrible, or does a bad job at what it intends. At least, not on those arguments.

I can't agree it has no force: its Section II, and in particular Article 6, for example.

Though I would agree that saying it's "terribly designed", simply because it "does nothing", is a misreading.

I can't agree it has no force: its Section II, and in particular Article 6, for example.

Though I would agree that saying it's "terribly designed", simply because it "does nothing", is a misreading.

Right, although there are no "mandating" clauses, per the way we currently draft proposals, it does, as our Gruenberger friend pointed out, state that UN member nations have certain duties, meaning that they must do certain things, as it does in Section II, Article 6.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN