NationStates Jolt Archive

The Right to Disarm
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: We, the People of these United Nations, in recognition of the desire of people everywhere for peace, declare that all Member Nations shall enjoy the right to be free of armaments.

I. No Member Nation shall be required to maintain armed forces of any kind, nor to maintain arms of any kind, in any quantity.

II. No Member Nation shall be required to force its citizens into arms.

III. No Member Nation's may demand military service of anyone save its own citizens.

IV. No Member Nation shall be required to furnish armed forces to another Nation, nor to any group of Nations, nor to these United Nations, unless it should agree to do so through a voluntary compact.

Approvals: 12 (Sedgistan, The Dancing Vagabond, WZ Forums, Firebert, The Felicitous, Lusapha, New Myopia, Kindjal, Gruenberg, Riishmark, Tarmsden, Eirisle)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 111 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 13 2006I'm opening this thread in response to a comment by Gruenberg to the effect that this resolution is illegal. I'm a little surprised by that assertion, because I thought I was steering pretty wide of the wind on this one (I'm usually cutting things pretty close).

So if anyone - and especially Rono - can see why this won't past muster, let me know. I actually think this is a reasonable NatSov proposal, designed to short-circuit the occasional proposal coming down the pipe to the effect that we all need to maintain some sort of special military capability or such, to protect against terrorism or whatever.

Positive comments are especially encouraged.

BTW, this is not to argue the merits (yet), although I suppose that we could. I really don't see anything controversial about this, although I'm sure some poor soul will misread it and utterly freak.

It's illegal because it doesn't actually encourage or mandate any disarmament. All it's saying it's that nations have a right to do something, or to not do it: so it's a category violation.

This is why, when you suggested I submit an "ideologically neutral" version of Individual Working Freedoms, I tried to explain how that was difficult: the resolution category system forces a degree of non-neutrality.

That said, I'm not opposed to the idea of this proposal: were you able to make it legal, I would support it.

I agree with Gruenberg. Maybe if the strength were reduced to "Mild" and a clause encouraging the overall reduction of armed forces were added, it would be clearly a legal proposal. Right now, it's questionable.

Oh, is that ironic.

Had I used my former style (the one everybody hates), it would have probably looked stronger, with “RESERVES”, “ALLOWS”, and even “FORBIDS” (Section III is actually a prohibition against forcing people who aren't your citizens into your armed forces, and Section IV is a prohibition against one country forcing other countries to raise “satellite” corps for its use; both would have been “FORBIDS” clauses). It's hugely funny that the new style softens some of this stuff.

Maybe if I reworded Section III to read that “Nations may not demand involuntary military service from persons who are not their citizens,” or reworded Section IV to read “Nations may not be compelled to furnish military forces, etc.”? I hate what that does to the whole resolution stylistically, but...

This declaration effectively makes conscription and the draft illegal. We use conscription. This goes against our internal sovereignty and our right to protect our borders. Conscription is a requirement of citizenship. Universal training to bear arms against aggressive nations. This is Section II we are opposing.

This declaration effectively makes conscription and the draft illegal. We use conscription. This goes against our internal sovereignty and our right to protect our borders. Conscription is a requirement of citizenship. Universal training to bear arms against aggressive nations. This is Section II we are opposing.
Read the fucking proposal already.

No wait, I remember who I'm talking to. Nevermind.

Had I used my former style (the one everybody hates)
What I don't like about your style is its overblown language, and the use of vast annexes to define everything from aardvark to zebra. The use operative verbs is nothing new, or problematic. But words like "reserves" and "allows" are still only reaffirming national rights.

I suppose, given Article III, which I hadn't fully taken in, there would be a case for a very slight reduction of military spending, assuming some nations do press-gang foreigners. But definitely Mild.

That said, I'm now more opposed to this. Firstly, you should use "nationals" instead of "citizens": in some nations, military service is a requirement for citizenship, or not every national is a citizen, etc. Secondly, I'm wondering about how Article III would affect joint operations between nations using conscription.

This declaration effectively makes conscription and the draft illegal. We use conscription. This goes against our internal sovereignty and our right to protect our borders. Conscription is a requirement of citizenship. Universal training to bear arms against aggressive nations. This is Section II we are opposing.I don't think it does; that certainly wasn't my intention.II. No Member Nation shall be required to force its citizens into arms.What this does is prevent someone from putting a resolution out there that says, “In the name of global security, all Member nations are hereby required to institute the draft.”

I think what you've done is mistaken “required” for “permitted” - that, or missed who is being freed from being required to do what for whom.II. No Member Nation shall be required to force its citizens into arms.II. No Member Nation shall be permitted to force its citizens into arms.See the difference?

I think this could be legalized by specifically mandating that "No nation may conscript citizens of another nation" but such an idea might be a duplication, and I'm not sure about the category.

I suppose, given Article III, which I hadn't fully taken in, there would be a case for a very slight reduction of military spending, assuming some nations do press-gang foreigners.Press-gangs were just what I had in mind.That said, I'm now more opposed to this. Firstly, you should use "nationals" instead of "citizens": in some nations, military service is a requirement for citizenship, or not every national is a citizen, etc. Secondly, I'm wondering about how Article III would affect joint operations between nations using conscription.On the first point, you're probably right. One of the reasons I didn't use “nationals” was (admittedly) a touch of liberal activism (gasp!). I figured that if a nation was going to conscript its own people, at least it ought to grant them citizenship. There's something that grinds me about pressing the disenfranchised into service.

That said, I don't want to ban the Heinlein model, and it occurs to me that some countries might withhold citizenship until discharge. Let me think about whether I want to add something like “or on guarantee of citizenship at the end of military service.”

On joint ops, my first blush would be to say that each nation is drafting its own citizens, so that's O.K. (and Article IV still allows nations to lend troops to other countries voluntarily, or under treaty). But I can see a problem with one side handing another raw levies; whose military are they in? Is it a loan, or a draft?

Good points.

Major loophole here: A nation can grant citizenship to a resident of another nation, and then conscript them. So, in effect all III does is make nations do more paperwork before they can conscript people in other nations.

Yeah... this doesn't do anything.

"Hey, you nations! Nobody can force you to disarm!"
<military spending magically reduces>

The text doesn't account for the effect of the category. The reads like a preamble to a law, as opposed to an actual piece of legislation.

It's illegal because it doesn't actually encourage or mandate any disarmament. All it's saying it's that nations have a right to do something, or to not do it: so it's a category violation.

*cough*ALC*cough*.

Although, I must in the end agree that this resolution doesn't do anything. I like the idea though, although I just don't see any nation ever BEING forced to arm in the first place, so the resolution kind of protects a right that, as far as I can tell, is totall unthreatened.

*cough*ALC*cough*.ALC, at the very least, encourages a certain action.

*cough*ALC*cough*.
"3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;"

You know, you should see a doctor about that cough.

Ruled illegal; when time permits, I'll get back to it again.

Ruled illegal; when time permits, I'll get back to it again.

Well then, we can only hope that time treats you like a baby treats a diaper.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN