NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolutions have become completely out of touch with the true purpose of the U.N.

The U.N. was founded in order to create a meeting place, a place to discuss international conflicts and to avoid war. A lot of the proposals and resolutions at hand have clearly gone far past those goals. This has created a somewhat difficult situation.

U.N. resolution #49:
Article 1
§ 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.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Examples of resolution violating natonal sovreignity are easy to find. A resolution concerning same-sex marriages is not something that should even be discussed by the U.N. National legislation is none of the U.N.´s concern.

Resolutions such as the one concerning hydrogen cars are also trespassing on national juristiction. What right does the U.N. have to tell governments what and what not to spend money on?

Lets get back to basics and support universal resolutions as those concerning trafficing of people, universal human rights and the Refugee Protection Act.

Lets not lose the sight of our goal.;)

A reading from the Gospel of Max Barry:

he UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

In other words, the UN was designed to be a place for international legislation.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

This makes it even more clear - a nation is allowed to propose any non-rules-breaking legislation, which then goes through the mechanics of delegate approval and potentially a floor vote. It doesn't say anything about specifically working to prevent war or to resolve international conflicts. The important take-home message is that the NationStates UN is not the same type of organization as the real-life UN.

This makes it even more clear - a nation is allowed to propose any non-rules-breaking legislation, which then goes through the mechanics of delegate approval and potentially a floor vote. It doesn't say anything about specifically working to prevent war or to resolve international conflicts.
Yes I know that nations are allowed to propose whatever they like, but that doesn´t mean that it´s right to propose resolutions violating national sovreignity.

I´m not discussing the rules of the game, but the principle of what the U.N. should do. In my opinion the U.N. is meddling to much in internal affairs.:rolleyes:

We aren't all soverignists, and while some writers will always take nat sov into account when they write up an idea, it isn't mandatory that everyone does so.

As a nat sov supporter, you have the right to vote against legislation you don't like, rally others to do the same, attempt repeals, but you don't have the right to tell others what they can and can't write based on your own opinions of what the UN should and shouldn't be involved in, and that is all nat sov or int fed is, opinion.

I am the author of the very nat sov Marriage Protecton Act, and the very anti nat sov Individual Self-Determination. I must admit that MPA was hard for me to write, not to mention make public and do the necessary to get passed. It went against everything I believe the NSUN should be allowed to do, but I felt it was the right thing to do on that paticular subject.

Nat sov certainly has a place in the NSUN, but I don't believe, and never will, that it should ever be the be all and end all of proposal writing. As long as they follow the proposal rules, members must be allowed to write whatever they wish. Those that don't like what is offered have options open to them.

Very good Witchcliff!
I´m just trying to discuss the principles, I don´t expect everyone to agree with me.

However what do you think of the argument posted in my proposal to repeal resolution #30 Common Sence Act II:
Although the intensions of this resolution are extremely good and most would agree with it´s goal, it violates the national sovreignity of every country in nationstates.

National legislators must be the ones who decide what criminal and/or civil lawsuits are, as it states in resolution #30: "...idiotic..."

The U.N. cannot take it upon itself to tell sovereign nations what laws to pass.

I feel self determination is the absolute right of every nation, on most subjects.

Same-sex marriages we can discuss in another thread, I think we pretty much agree on the principles of your proposal, however we disagree on the means.

U.N. resolution #49:Article 1
§ 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.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
If you're going to use Rights and Duties to make your case, better read ALL of it.
Article 11
§ 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.
Resolution #49 defines National Sovereignty as the penultimate authority, but it quite clearly defines the United Nations as the ultimate authority. Please don't take my resolution out of context to make a fallacious case for sovereignty.

Yeah, well I'm one of those who hates repeals based on nat sov, and those lines are what stopped me endorsing that paticular one about half an hour ago when I checked the list ;).

I prefer repeal authors to concentrate on what is wrong with the resolution itself, such as bad writing, redundancy, stupidity (which is what I would put that reso under) ect. Like I said before, nat sov is an opinion and my own opinion is that nat sov isn't enough to justify a repeal on its own. A lot of resolutions especially the older ones, have enough to justify a repeal attempt without needing even a mention of national soverignty.

Individual Self-Determination (I got the name wrong in my last post, corrected now) is not giving nations any rights. That resolution is giving all people the right to die. It is about as nat sov hostile as a resolution can get. I am also a very strong supporter of gay rights/marriage, rights to abortion and lots of other things that make nat sov supporters scream :p.

With me, whether I decide to write nat sov friendly or not depends on the subject. When it comes to human rights proposals, I never give it a second thought. Human rights are, by their very nature, interfering, but my own belief is that the benefits to all peoples from the legislation outweighs what their government may or may not want. Orbital Space Safety Act, and environmental resolution, was written nat sov friendly because the subject didn't require interference, so I didn't write in any.

Yes I know that nations are allowed to propose whatever they like, but that doesn´t mean that it´s right to propose resolutions violating national sovreignity.

You know what isn't right? National governments who treat their people like diseased faecal matter, and the environment like the toilet paper to wipe diseased faecal matter. National Sovereignty be damned if it would otherwise permit atrocities.
Micromanagement and moral absolution -- that's another story.

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Im very much with both Witchcliff and Frisbeeteria. National Sovereignty is very important however the resolutions crafted by the UN are the laws which the UN creates as whole.

This makes the NSUN in effect the Parliament of Nation States. It is nothing like the UN from that mystical, possibly ficticious world of RL. And while Ellelt tends to side more with International Federalist Camp than it does with the National Sovereignty Camp the NSUN allows all UN members to politck the way they choose provided it is within certain rules.

I will Urge my UN delgate to not endorse any legislation and will activly campaign against any legislation to try to change that. What is needed is a balance between NatSov and IntFed...much like one's right hand (assuming they only have two hands :p ) is balanced by their left hand.

I suggest that if you dont like a particular resolution that is under consideration by the NSUN you politick against it...and if you dont like a resolution that has passed you write a repeal against it. Also I suggest you write resolutions yourself...not all of them will pass, hell, not all of them will even get past the drafting stage. It has happened to me, and I am sure it has happened to other people here too.

And those are the Basics we should be getting back to.

You know what isn't right? National governments who treat their people like diseased faecal matter, and the environment like the toilet paper to wipe diseased faecal matter. National Sovereignty be damned if it would otherwise permit atrocities.
Micromanagement and moral absolution -- that's another story.

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador


Hell, I don't like governments that treat their people like diseased fecal matter or the environment like sanitary towels.

Honestly, it's much more advantageous to keep them happy and the environment clean- we can make a lot more money that way.

But honestly? We can handle ourselves pretty well. I'm willing to wager that the majority of the rabid psychotic dictatorships that should be punished by the UN for foolishly oppressing their people aren't even members of the UN in the first place.

If you're going to use Rights and Duties to make your case, better read ALL of it.

I did read all of it, and I appologize if you feel that your resolution has been misused. However the resolution you wrote states that:
"Article 1
§ 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."
And now some nations are proposing resolutions that force every country to have a democratic government. I agree with it´s intensions but you have to agree with me that such resolutions are going too far...

You know what isn't right? National governments who treat their people like diseased faecal matter, and the environment like the toilet paper to wipe diseased faecal matter. National Sovereignty be damned if it would otherwise permit atrocities.
As I said in the opening message, I feel that the role of the U.N. should mostly be based on Human Rights, International Trade Acts, Humanitarian Aid and much more in that direction rather than making legislation forcing nations to fund development of hydrogen cars.:rolleyes:

And now some nations are proposing resolutions that force every country to have a democratic government.
Such proposals are illegal. Nothing to worry about on that front.

As I said in the opening message, I feel that the role of the U.N. should mostly be based on Human Rights, International Trade Acts, Humanitarian Aid and much more in that direction rather than making legislation forcing nations to fund development of hydrogen cars.
No, what you said at the beginning was that, as a point of fact, those things were the role of the UN. It's only now that you're admitting that that's simply your opinion of how things should be.

For the purposes of quoting R&D of UN Nations, there is a minor logical fallacy in using that one clause to protect national sovereignty.

Article 1
§ 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.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Emphasis added by me.

The UN is not a nationstate. Nations have the right to not have their government interfered upon by other nationstates. It says nothing about proteccting nations from the UN.

Article 2 simply states that nations have the right to do what they will within their own borders, except where the UN says otherwise.

I am a supporter of the National Sovereignty movement as well, but R&D of UN Nations doesn't protect the Nat/Sov movement within the UN.

Gruenberg, do you agrre with the following:
The U.N. was founded in order to create a meeting place, a place to discuss international conflicts and to avoid war.
Or do you have another understanding of history? The fact is that the U.N. was a result of hard negotiations between the powerful nations in order to avoid war, and that is still the purpouse to day. Therefore many resolutions are crossing into territory where they litteraly tell goverments how to run their countries.
This might result in countries leaving the U.N. wich makes the global stability even worse than it is today. The U.N. is supposed to be open to everyone, not just a selected group that support same-sex marriages and hydrogen cars, although I myself support those issues, they create a distance between moderates and hardliners.
Weakening global stability is going in the oppsite direction of the purpose of the U.N. this is my point.

The UN is not a nationstate.
The UN is not a nationstate, but several nationstates. Wether it is one or a hundred nationstates that dictate another nationstate doesn´t really matter, it still is a violation.

Gruenberg, do you agrre with the following:
No.

I tend to agree that's a useful function of the UN, but I don't agree that it is definitively its purpose.

Or do you have another understanding of history? The fact is that the U.N. was a result of hard negotiations between the powerful nations in order to avoid war, and that is still the purpouse to day.
No, that's the Real Life UN. This is the NationStates UN, founded November 2002 by one nation, Maxtopia.

This might result in countries leaving the U.N. wich makes the global stability even worse than it is today. The U.N. is supposed to be open to everyone, not just a selected group that support same-sex marriages and hydrogen cars, although I myself support those issues, they create a distance between moderates and hardliners.
Weakening global stability is going in the oppsite direction of the purpose of the U.N. this is my point.
Hi, I'm The Converted. You must be Mr Preacher?

I agree with all of this, fairly obviously, given all the repeals and blockers I've supported, and given I'm a member of the NSO (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg). I just don't pretend that "what I think the UN should do" is "what the UN was exclusively set up to do".

The UN is not a nationstate, but several nationstates. Wether it is one or a hundred nationstates that dictate another nationstate doesn´t really matter, it still is a violation.
No, it's not. The UN is a congress of nation-states, and their output is International Law. It's not the nations that are dictating, it's the law they've mutually agreed upon.

As says Gruenberg, so say I. I happen to think that the UN is incredibly intrusive in places they have no business intruding. Frisbeeteria resigned from the UN as a result of that. That doesn't change the fact that it is the Right and Duty of the UN to enforce the legislation supported by a majority of members, whether you agree with it or not.

And of course, like the other two thirds of NationStates, you can always resign.

Resolutions such as the one concerning hydrogen cars are also trespassing on national juristiction. What right does the U.N. have to tell governments what and what not to spend money on?

Lets get back to basics and support universal resolutions as those concerning trafficing of people, universal human rights and the Refugee Protection Act.

Lets not lose the sight of our goal.;)

I haven't. And I think I'll refrain from going back to the basics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4). I've long since moved to more advanced studies (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11565395&postcount=3) as a means of acheiving the basic goal.

Anyway, maybe the best thing to do is to move on, and draft a repeal of Resolution #18, and so we can actually repeal it.

Anyway, maybe the best thing to do is to move on, and draft a repeal of Resolution #18, and so we can actually repeal it.

I dig it. Shall I begin the drafting or do you want to?

Well I'd rather thought Aquilonius Gloria was going to...

Well I'd rather thought Aquilonius Gloria was going to...

I guess I'm not so optimistic. But to be fair to the fellow, I'll hold my horses until he has a chance to start in on it.

Ok, apparently I need to rephrase.

Maybe you should post your repeal on the forums, so we can help you draft it into a better shape.

I see both of you are members of the NSO. I´d like to join. Can I? Pretty please:D ?

Sure I can write a draft to repeal. However if Hotrod really would like to write a draft he is welcome to, I won´t stand in his way.

No, it's not. The UN is a congress of nation-states, and their output is International Law. It's not the nations that are dictating, it's the law they've mutually agreed upon.
A numerical majority is not the same as morally right. They have not mutually agrred, it is a majority dictatorship. The fact that a majority of Germans decided to persecute the Jews didn´t make it right. There is a distinct difference between democracy and mob-rule.

I see both of you are members of the NSO. I´d like to join. Can I? Pretty please:D ?

Sure I can write a draft to repeal. However if Hotrod really would like to write a draft he is welcome to, I won´t stand in his way.

Just register on the forum to apply for membership.

Go ahead and write the draft. I have little need to have my name on any more resolutions, and it would be a good opportunity for you to learn more firsthand about the UN legislative process.