NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the text of the next proposal at vote:

Mutual Recognition of Borders

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

-A- OBSERVING that border disputes and claims by more than one nation over a territory are significant sources of wars and cause excessive damage to international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships:


-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared amongst UN members;

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;

-4- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes;

-5- URGES members to establish border crossing points with other members with whom they share a border, in order to increase international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships.


NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another dimension) of our NS multiverse.

Co-authored by Ceorana

Here is the drafting thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507823

As the "NB" in the proposal is about "multiverse", here are 2 links which are good introductions to this topic:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Multiverse
NSWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29
Wikipedia

Full support for this and I will be casting my vote in favor. Best of luck LAE.

Same here. (Well, I have to obey the wishes of Charis with my vote, but it's getting lots of support there.)

Barring any dissention from my fellow region nations, Drae Nei intends to place all 7 regional votes in favor.

Ellelt will abstain, pending further debate.

V. Khernynko.

As at this moment (subject to change due to more information), The Dominion of Steweystan will be willing to support this proposal.

My UN nation will be abstaining. Nothing personal.

Just a question, because there quite possibly is the chance that I simply misread or misinterpreted the proposal, but what effect (if any) would this have on borders shared between UN nations and non-UN nations?

-Hail Jotz-

Jotzerland Chairman of Foreign Affairs

Depending on the Nation... they may be out of luck if their neighbour decides to be an arse about things...

This resolution-to-be would have no effect on borders between UN and non-UN nations. It only deals with borders between two UN nations.

Ceorana fully supports this resolution. It would help resolve border disputes and thereby reduce wars, which is a Good Thing. Of course, you all already knew that, since nations, like people, tend to avoid having their names stamped on things unless they like them. That's what trademark law's all about. Really. Does anyone know about that recent trademark battle in Ceroana? It involved a lot of different people. Really. It was cool. Really. Really. Cool. Really. Really. Really.

Billy, get away from the mic!

Sorry, dad.

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

Say we have the boarder dispute between Pakistan and India. In the mediation process, do inhabitants of Kashmir get invited to the table?

Mikitivity strongly supports this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

I'm voting FOR this. There must be a clear understanding of where the line is. Mark your territory now.

Ambassador Euphobes and all 32 of his votes have been cast in support of this resolution.

Say we have the boarder dispute between Pakistan and India. In the mediation process, do inhabitants of Kashmir get invited to the table?

Good question. :)

I'd say indirectly yes, directly no.

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared amongst UN members;

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

As Billy the Kid pointed out, the resolution is intended for recognized UN members to work with other UN members, not individual residents. By this logic the people of the Kashmir are already represented by the governments of India and Pakistan, both of whom have territorial claims on the region / people.

By the same token, Palestinians would get no special recognition via this resolution, as they too have no UN state, but instead are administered by Israel.

There is no reason that in the future we should not address the issue of stateless peoples, dislocated peoples, or even get into the more complex issues such as occupied territories. But the scope of this resolution is more to ease international tensions between nations such as India and Pakistan. Once a firm border is negotiated (which could take years), then the treatment of individuals left behind on the wrong side of a new border should be addressed via another resolution.

Essentially your question is fair, but I am strongly convinced that we need to take baby steps first ... this resolution is just that. It is straight forward and will build the ground work to really give us the ability to look in more detail at the fact that political borders do not always respect cultural borders. However, given the number of existing human rights resolutions, there already are some protections that are theoretically in place to prevent abuses of people whom might end up on the "wrong" side of a border.

I still think this is an excellent resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

Mercern will be abstaining until the proposition has been perused by many more nations, and until debate has been significantly furthered.

The GPRG fully support to this resolution and would very much like too see it pass.


Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let me introduce myself shortly, my name is Linda Anaris I am the new GPRG ambassador to the UN and will be replacing Mr. Glenn-Kenneth Goth. The reason being Mr. Goths inability to establish a consistent gnejsian presence within these halls, his bad manners and over all poor skills within the diplomatic field. I hope to estabslish the GPRG in the UN and look forward to working along side all of you.


Linda Anaris
UN-Ambassador
GPRG

The point about Kashmir is central to this problem.

I'm all for nations recognising each others mutually agreed borders, but borders are usually the accidents of history and warfare, with minority religious and ethnic groups split either side of the line (look at all those straight lines running across Africa- those are white people lines).

This bill should be redrafted with a clause that allows that the majority of any self nominated area within an existing state has the right to breakaway if it should choose to do so through a referendum and that states must provide avenues of access for internal groups to initiate such referenda.

Fredrick Napoleon III, chief financial shareholder of Newtown St Peters

Never really thought I'd catch myself arguing in such a fashion, but Mutual Recognition of Borders doesn't go far enough. Mandating the official recognition of undisputed borders is fine, and will stave off future disputes over said borders, but the disputed ones are where more needs to be done.

The creation of an organization that nations can choose to go to for mediation and assistance in settling these issues is a nice gesture, but guarantees nothing and will hold no sway over those nations who do not desire assistance or choose to ignore mediator suggestions.

As an inherently international concern, this should be more strongly worded. Something that would enforce some kind of end to the conflicts in question. Polite suggestions rarely have sufficient sway in border disputes or armed conflict of any kind. What MRB essentially says on the matter is this:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/Catz/safety_measure.jpg

While a nice sentiment, I doubt it will help overmuch. Unless the goal was to prevent future more comprehensive legislation on the subject, but I doubt that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this bill, in fact, do absolutely nothing for the game, much less have any impact on our nations? We can't invade one another anyway, so what's the point of even having a bill to mediate border conflicts WHEN WE HAVE NO GOD DAMN BORDERS?

The matter merely discussed the pros of the issue, not the cons. I like hearing from both sides. Say, for instance, one nation does get out of line. Are we hereby restricted to do anything about it?

We of Lisergicabais agree with Anarcho-Syndacism it seems pointless to have such resolution if it will not make any effect in any case if we want to vote this to settle this just in the hipotetical world the i think the resolution is fine and another one could be drafted about hte break away natios and peoples without a nation and invaded regiosn in my view this resolution aims to put starting point in border disputes.

And what the hack was the last thing about multiuniverse i didn tget it at all

Aleshians feel that if this legislation had been the enacted we would never have been able to establish our independence and recognition of our nation due to the interests of established govenments and multinationals keen to exploit the resources of our land.

As such we choose not to to vote for this until the issue of subjugated people is resolved and a mecahnism is incorporated to listen to, consider and value the needs , beliefs and aspirations of local people.

Kiloranbrae for the people of Aleshia

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this bill, in fact, do absolutely nothing for the game, much less have any impact on our nations? We can't invade one another anyway, so what's the point of even having a bill to mediate border conflicts WHEN WE HAVE NO GOD DAMN BORDERS?
[OOC] You also have no people, no military, no economy, and no leaders. All you have is text on a website. Strange how people seem to believe otherwise.

Try suspending disbelief for a few seconds, Anarcho-Syndacism. You might enjoy the game more.

Daddy! Look! Over there! It's a flying gorilla! No, on the thirty-ninth floor! Go catch it Daddy!

I'm all for nations recognising each others mutually agreed borders, but borders are usually the accidents of history and warfare, with minority religious and ethnic groups split either side of the line (look at all those straight lines running across Africa- those are white people lines).

This bill should be redrafted with a clause that allows that the majority of any self nominated area within an existing state has the right to breakaway if it should choose to do so through a referendum and that states must provide avenues of access for internal groups to initiate such referenda.

Well, you see, this only deals with borders between two UN nations that are agreed. If a nation wants to break off, it can do so in whatever fashion it chooses. This only prevents one nation from going to war with nations it previously was A-OK with the borders of. Really. Yeah, that's right.

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

Sir Barren Trevor Bolt straightens his jacket before approaching the podium. He clears his throat before begining.

"As official representitive of the Republic of 4stringopia I feel it's important to state that our nations borders are a matter of grave importance, one would not like to grant too much nor to little to any other nation which is why a bill such as this is a positive step forward, however you wish to look at it this problem is one that..."

As Sir Bolt continues to ramble his two admistrative assistants quickly leap into action, he's gotten stuck in a rant again. They emmidiatly remove Sir Bolt with the help of a miniture crane and shipping tray. Once removed from the podium his temporary replacement steps forward.

"The Republic of 4stringopia supports the "Mutual Recognition of Borders" Bill, thank you"

Never really thought I'd catch myself arguing in such a fashion, but Mutual Recognition of Borders doesn't go far enough. Mandating the official recognition of undisputed borders is fine, and will stave off future disputes over said borders, but the disputed ones are where more needs to be done.

The creation of an organization that nations can choose to go to for mediation and assistance in settling these issues is a nice gesture, but guarantees nothing and will hold no sway over those nations who do not desire assistance or choose to ignore mediator suggestions.

As an inherently international concern, this should be more strongly worded. Something that would enforce some kind of end to the conflicts in question. Polite suggestions rarely have sufficient sway in border disputes or armed conflict of any kind. What MRB essentially says on the matter is this:

While a nice sentiment, I doubt it will help overmuch. Unless the goal was to prevent future more comprehensive legislation on the subject, but I doubt that.
You may be shocked to learn this, but sometimes we feel that it is best for the UN not to use the "Big Black Truncheon Of Mandatory Compliance" and beat nations about the head with it until they do what's "right". This is one of those times.

This Resolution provides a framework whereby nations can peacefully and amicably settle their border disputes. You aren't forced to take advantage of the framework, you and your neighbor across the disputed border can still lob artillery at one another if you choose. But we feel that if both parties enter into negotiations over a disputed border voluntarily, then there is a much greater chance of a lasting settlement than if there was a mandatory settlement imposed on one or both.

Yes, LAE could have established a commission with sweeping powers that could have used the big hammer approach and said "these are your borders! We have settled this issue! Deal with it!" But would that have really ended war?

Quynn Olver
Yeldan Foreign Minister

OOC: I understand what you're saying Kiv, about making it stronger. But could we really end wars erupting from border disputes in that way? I'm not sure it would even be legal to "outlaw war", over borders or anything else. Besides, if we imposed some sort of settlement and said "OK, you can't attack each other over any border-related disagreements from now on", wouldn't a disgruntled government, unhappy with the settlement, just find some other excuse. It will work better (in my opinion) if both sides voluntarily agree to the mediation efforts and mutually agree to the settlement.

We believe that border disputes are among the most difficult to resolve between nations, and often the most disruptive, as they often lead to wars and other conflicts between nations. Altanar fully supports this proposal and hopes it will lead to greater stability.

Aleshians feel that if this legislation had been the enacted we would never have been able to establish our independence and recognition of our nation due to the interests of established govenments and multinationals keen to exploit the resources of our land.

As such we choose not to to vote for this until the issue of subjugated people is resolved and a mecahnism is incorporated to listen to, consider and value the needs , beliefs and aspirations of local people.

Kiloranbrae for the people of Aleshia

The point about Kashmir is central to this problem.

I'm all for nations recognising each others mutually agreed borders, but borders are usually the accidents of history and warfare, with minority religious and ethnic groups split either side of the line (look at all those straight lines running across Africa- those are white people lines).

This bill should be redrafted with a clause that allows that the majority of any self nominated area within an existing state has the right to breakaway if it should choose to do so through a referendum and that states must provide avenues of access for internal groups to initiate such referenda.

Fredrick Napoleon III, chief financial shareholder of Newtown St Peters


Thank you for your interesting comments, I fully agree that this problem is related to this proposal, but I had no idea how to deal with that in NS, it's why this proposal doesn't adress this problem. But Love and esterel will very probably support a good resolution about this.

But maybe also I tend to think that borders will never be able to fit with a "population", it's why border dispute can be endless and it's why this proposal try to help to settle the more borders it can.

Say we have the boarder dispute between Pakistan and India. In the mediation process, do inhabitants of Kashmir get invited to the table?

Clause -3- of this proposal says:
"-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;"

I agree that this clause would have been better written as:

"-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions taking into account the best interest of inhabitants of the concerned areas, during current and future border disputes;"

but I think that this is included in "peaceful, fair and balanced solutions".

Never really thought I'd catch myself arguing in such a fashion, but Mutual Recognition of Borders doesn't go far enough. Mandating the official recognition of undisputed borders is fine, and will stave off future disputes over said borders, but the disputed ones are where more needs to be done.

The creation of an organization that nations can choose to go to for mediation and assistance in settling these issues is a nice gesture, but guarantees nothing and will hold no sway over those nations who do not desire assistance or choose to ignore mediator suggestions.

As an inherently international concern, this should be more strongly worded. Something that would enforce some kind of end to the conflicts in question. Polite suggestions rarely have sufficient sway in border disputes or armed conflict of any kind. What MRB essentially says on the matter is this:

While a nice sentiment, I doubt it will help overmuch. Unless the goal was to prevent future more comprehensive legislation on the subject, but I doubt that.

The UN has Gnomes but no army, so maybe there are better solutions, but I just donno how the UN can enforce such things, this resolution try to bring these nations to a negociation table and these nations will not get the feeling to be brought to this table by force.

Wha' a bunch o' pacifist bilge. Garr! Th' peace lovin' scallywags o' Mach2 do nah agree wit' th' premise that "...border disputes and claims by more than one nation over a territory are significant sources of wars and cause excessive damage to international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships". Blimy! Who says th' damage be EXCESSIVE! Avast! We believes any damage caused in th' rightful defense o' our borders be proper 'n necessary t' protect our sovereignty. By definition, no amount o' damage can be called EXCESSIVE fer th' preservation o' our nation 'n its national interests.

Establishin' a "Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders" (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation", will submit our sovereign scallywags t' th' whims o' a bunch o' unelected, corrupt foreign delegates who are subject t' bribes, blackmail 'n graft from interested parties who desire a favorable rulin' at th' expense o' th' hearties 'n wenches o' Mach2.

Th' resolution urges hands t' seek neutral third party mediation, such as th' CMRoB, fer peaceful, fair 'n balanced solutions, durin' current 'n future border disputes. Surrender! Thar be no such entity as a NEUTRAL third party. Scupper that! All nations 'ave interests 'n will always act t' further 'n protect those interests. Aye! Submittin' yer nations interests t' another group o' nations actin' in thar best interests be a sure course t' destruction fer yer owns nation.

Vote against this assault on sovereignty t' protect yer scallywags from pillaging by corrupt third party delegates. Blimy!

The resolution as drafted does not seem to allow co-dominion to exist unless the owning countries are not on the same "plane of existence".
In fact, InRealLife OurTimeLine *here*, there have been a few cases, and may be a few right now, in which a co-dominion was (or is) peaceful and friendly between the owning nations (whether there were or are two or more than two).
The "NB" needs to be revised.
Until it is, it is my opinion that this resolution would create problems where none currently exist. It might also solve or prevent problems; but that's not good enough.
I will vote AGAINST this resolution, and will advise my region's delegate to vote AGAINST it as well.

Vote against this assault on sovereignty t' protect yer scallywags from pillaging by corrupt third party delegates. Blimy!

I managed to understand this much, at least.

We would encourage the delegate to look at this in a different way. By establishing a recognized means for resolving these disputes, this proposal could actually help protect your sovereignty. This proposal, as we interpret it, provides UN members a means to resolve territorial disputes. Assuming the facts are on your side, this would protect you from another UN member making claims on your land.

And in the case of non-UN members, that's what militaries are for.

I think I agree with the probable sentiment of this resolution, but I can't vote for it.

I agree with the comments written about Kashmir.
Also, what about Kurdistan?
Iran, Iraq and Turkey can all agree with each other internationally agreed borders which entirely disenfranchise the Kurds.

Existing states don't necessarily reflect real national (i.e. distinct groups of people) borders.

This resolution enshrines the oppression of stateless peoples around the world.

Ellelt right now is leaning against the proposal, but the Politburo has not voted on it so we are still officially abstaining.

However, I do have a question that must be answered. Multi-universe theory, How does that play in with this Proposal?

As I understand it there are some countries that actually use the mythical land of RW as the pattern for their nations for example lets take a country that uses the Mythical US of A as a model, and then there is a second country that uses the same thing but sets their time period say 50 Terrain years in the future and a third that sets their time period say 50 terrain years in the past.

How then does this proposal deal with that issue? We would have essentially three NS nations occupying the same territory in three different time periods.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The UN Ambassador from Cirris recognizes the current issue with borders and the potential issue with internal strife in which secession is a desired outcome. However, in review of the resolution, the Ambassador sees no issues that would render such problems unresolvable. The resolution seeks to solidify current borders into universally recognized divides between fellow UN members. It doesn't, however, render them unchangeable. It is Cirris opinion that it only seems to create the structure under which future border disputes can be compared to on a formal level.

In addition, it does not seem to exclude the very tangible possibility of internal division, as it explicitly regards international borders. In addition, the committee it wishes to create would be a powerful official force to help such conflicts, as well as guide possible new nations that would arise from internal strifes within a member nation to autonomous status under which it as well could be considered a UN Member Nation.

While Cirris has worries as to the implications in regards to borders with non-member nations, it also recognizes that such a resolution would not be applicable to non-member nations, and the formal support of third-party resolutions to assist a Member Nation with possible border issues with a non-member nation goes as far as the UN's jurisdiction shall allow it to go.

Cirris formally supports the resolution and would encourage its fellow members of the international community to support it as well.

Ness Cuprick
Cirrian Ambassador to the United Nations

Ellelt right now is leaning against the proposal, but the Politburo has not voted on it so we are still officially abstaining.

However, I do have a question that must be answered. Multi-universe theory, How does that play in with this Proposal?

As I understand it there are some countries that actually use the mythical land of RW as the pattern for their nations for example lets take a country that uses the Mythical US of A as a model, and then there is a second country that uses the same thing but sets their time period say 50 Terrain years in the future and a third that sets their time period say 50 terrain years in the past.

How then does this proposal deal with that issue? We would have essentially three NS nations occupying the same territory in three different time periods.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.


Based on Dr. Hauer's (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wolf_Hauer) observations on the multiverse, it is the understanding of my government that this does not pose a problem, but rather would make the negotiations exceedingly easy. For example, let's pretend that another nation might have a claim to the Thuvian Mountains (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Thuvian), all that would have to happen is that both parties would share information on when, where, and how they occupy seemingly the same place. The neogitations would very likely just differentiate between the two different Thuvian ranges and then codify that within the records of the United Nations.

:)

In short, multiverse theory will make things easier.

H. Katzman

The resolution as drafted does not seem to allow co-dominion to exist unless the owning countries are not on the same "plane of existence".
In fact, InRealLife OurTimeLine *here*, there have been a few cases, and may be a few right now, in which a co-dominion was (or is) peaceful and friendly between the owning nations (whether there were or are two or more than two).
The "NB" needs to be revised.
Until it is, it is my opinion that this resolution would create problems where none currently exist. It might also solve or prevent problems; but that's not good enough.
I will vote AGAINST this resolution, and will advise my region's delegate to vote AGAINST it as well.

I must admit that I donno what a "co-dominion" is ,thank you if you can explain it to me.

I think I agree with the probable sentiment of this resolution, but I can't vote for it.

I agree with the comments written about Kashmir.
Also, what about Kurdistan?
Iran, Iraq and Turkey can all agree with each other internationally agreed borders which entirely disenfranchise the Kurds.

Existing states don't necessarily reflect real national (i.e. distinct groups of people) borders.

This resolution enshrines the oppression of stateless peoples around the world.

About self-dermination I agree that this proposal would have been better including this topic, I just didn't know how to do it and Love and esterel will very probably support a sensible effort on this matter. As Ceorana said, nothing in this proposal prevent nation to break off.

Also about Kurdistan, I'm sad to say that but I'm not sure that the UN has to force the creation of such a state. i'm not sure if it's reasonable to force or even ask the divide of Iran, Iraq, Sirya and Turkey (there is even a kurd enclave in Armenia!) and then to create a new state from the kurd parts of these nations, or to create 4 new kurds states? Maybe a new proposal can mandates/urges/encourages the set up of regional parliaments such as Scotland's one in order to give more control of themselves to "stateless peoples".

I think I agree with the probable sentiment of this resolution, but I can't vote for it.

I agree with the comments written about Kashmir.
Also, what about Kurdistan?
Iran, Iraq and Turkey can all agree with each other internationally agreed borders which entirely disenfranchise the Kurds.

Existing states don't necessarily reflect real national (i.e. distinct groups of people) borders.

This resolution enshrines the oppression of stateless peoples around the world.

I disagree. The minute borders are agreed upon, UN members are subject to other UN resolutions, which tend to prevent oppression. However, if a territory is under dispute, how can the UN clearly define which nation is in violation of our numerous human rights resolutions.

Essentially if you are worried about the Kurds or others, then this resolution is a way to slowly help them.

H.Katzman

How does this resolution affect diplomatic & trade relations with non-UN member states which are within the 'official' boarders of UN member states?

e.g. Taiwan.

How does this resolution affect diplomatic & trade relations with non-UN member states which are within the 'official' boarders of UN member states?

e.g. Taiwan.

The proposal affect these cases only with clause 4:

"-4- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes; "

I think against this. why should I share my borderlands with other nations? that will expand their control over my country.

Sirat has not yet voted, but our initial reaction can be summed up in three words: Pie in the sky! National borders are notoriously contentious, especially if there are multiple cultures/religions involved. The nations most likely to have border wars are also the ones least likely to try to resolve them peacefully, regardless of what this resolution urges.

We accept the positive intention of this proposal and recognise that this might create future scope to address the concerns of unrecognised nations.

However there must be a committment by UN nations to do this.

We will vote for this proposal but must state that the UN's reputation amongst our population is damaged when neccessary additional parts of legislation are not carried through. Currently there is concern in Aleshia concerning the repeal of the World Heritage List and subsequent increases in deforestation due to lumbering and mining leading to an increase in the number of endangered species in this world. As a group of nations we need to ensure legislation will work for all peoples of the planet and not just power cliques.

The Aleshian spokesperson has been reprimanded for being unaware of this proposal while it was being drafted and so missing an opportunity to raise the issue of unnationed peoples.

Daddy, there are some rogue apostrophes in someone's post that you need to sort out!
Sirat has not yet voted, but our initial reaction can be summed up in three words: Pie in the sky! National borders are notoriously contentious, especially if there are multiple cultures/religions involved. The nations most likely to have border wars are also the ones least likely to try to resolve them peacefully, regardless of what this resolution urges.

Well, see, if nations have a way to resolve their arguments using their words, instead of their AK-47s, they might use them. See, like, at my school, we just got this thing called "mediators", which are like sixth graders who help us third-graders work out our problems peacefully. Really. Like, it's awesome, 'cause I don't get beat up so much no more. And I like pie. Is there any around?

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

The resolution as drafted does not seem to allow co-dominion to exist unless the owning countries are not on the same "plane of existence".
In fact, InRealLife OurTimeLine *here*, there have been a few cases, and may be a few right now, in which a co-dominion was (or is) peaceful and friendly between the owning nations (whether there were or are two or more than two).
The "NB" needs to be revised.
Until it is, it is my opinion that this resolution would create problems where none currently exist. It might also solve or prevent problems; but that's not good enough.
I will vote AGAINST this resolution, and will advise my region's delegate to vote AGAINST it as well.

This would allow co-dominion. If you share control of an area, you don't have a border, and you don't need to recognize it under this resolution. Right. Really. No borders, no recognition. Right. Yeah.

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

I have a wall around my island only ways you can enter are S.P.F.O (strongily prohibited from others to know) so i urge borders

Sirat has not yet voted, but our initial reaction can be summed up in three words: Pie in the sky!That's four words.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ceorana fully supports this resolution.OOC: I'd hope so, you're listed as co-author.:p

I will have to vote against this as many territory disputes are related to religion and therefore it will not only be hard to resolve but it will not be lasting, causing more conflicts.

OOC: I'd hope so, you're listed as co-author.:p

OOC: The guy's a third-grader! Give him a break! (despite the fact that he seems to possess the intelligence of his dad) :p

Yo, dad, ice cream upstairs!

I will have to vote against this as many territory disputes are related to religion and therefore it will not only be hard to resolve but it will not be lasting, causing more conflicts.

Well, see, you may think that conflicts because of religion wouldn't work for very long. That's a very solid belief. However, we can't lose anything by trying. See, it's like extra credit. My teacher gives me a hard assignment for extra credit, and if I do it right, I get billions of points added to my grade, but if I completely mess up, nothing bad happens. Same here. What can people lose by sitting down with some expensive coffee and trying to find a solution to problems? It sure beats fighting a war about it if it works, see?

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

True, although some nations may have agreed on "uncontested" territory, where neither truly owns it. If they are forced who decides on the control, conflict might ignite.

And as we all know, creating more nations out of nations never helps.

Maybe a clause could be included to allow in specific circumstances land to be uncontested.

The proposal is supported by the Government of the United Socialist States of Dazchan. We look forward to having our borders mutually recognised by the United Nations.

The USSD would also like to congratulate Billy Webster on his research and coherency, which is remarkable for such a young boy.

D. Fareg
USSD UN Ambassador

We of Lisergicabais agree with Anarcho-Syndacism it seems pointless to have such resolution if it will not make any effect in any case if we want to vote this to settle this just in the hipotetical world the i think the resolution is fine and another one could be drafted about hte break away natios and peoples without a nation and invaded regiosn in my view this resolution aims to put starting point in border disputes.

And what the hack was the last thing about multiuniverse i didn tget it at all

Spectacular. Clearly from a universe totally devoid of grammar and standardised spelling.

We support this resolution, though suspect that it will have no actual effect on anything. As for the debate on dispossessed peoples, that is, as has been noted above, a wholly different matter. A kanovwurmz and no mishtake.

Easy now

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

But we feel that if both parties enter into negotiations over a disputed border voluntarily, then there is a much greater chance of a lasting settlement than if there was a mandatory settlement imposed on one or both.


You raise a very good point, my friend. I guess I overstated my intent. You are definitely correct that we can't tell nations to simply be at peace with each other and expect it to last. What I was more aiming for was simply something along the lines of "in cases where borders are disputed, member nations shall, first and foremost, endeavor to arrive at a pacific resolution before resorting to armed conflict." Or something like that. That example's a little rough because I tore it from something else that I'm working on. It wouldn't ban war between UN members, but it would require them to at least make an attempt at peace before going for their guns. If they are set on destroying one another, then they will anyways, but the negotiations would hardly have hurt them. For those not so intent on war, they might benefit from the mediation that they might not have sought on their own.


Maybe a clause could be included to allow in specific circumstances land to be uncontested.

Uncontested lands would not have disputed borders. Or any borders at all in some cases. To use a hypothetical example:

There are two neighbouring nations, Lions and Tigers. Along their shared border, there is a region we will call Bears. Neither Lions nor Tigers makes any specific claim to owning Bears, nor do they have any issue with sharing that territory with their neighbour. The undisputed borders of Lions and Tigers would fall around Bears, but not through it. Should Lions and Tigers wish to reach some formal agreement that simply states that Bears is a land that will be shared by the two nations, neither one claiming sovereign rights over it, then they would be free to do so. Should the two neighbours decide to simply leave the land uncontested and unclaimed, that is their choice as well. Nothing in this resolution will prevent Lions and Tigers from working out what to do with Bears on their own.

What I was more aiming for was simply something along the lines of "in cases where borders are disputed, member nations shall, first and foremost, endeavor to arrive at a pacific resolution before resorting to armed conflict."
Ah, OK. I see what you mean then. More of a requirement to seek mediation before going to war, rather than just an "urging". I see your point.

"in cases where borders are disputed, member nations shall, first and foremost, endeavor to arrive at a pacific resolution before resorting to armed conflict."
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

That's pretty much where I got the inspiration from. Still just a free floating concept more than anything, though. Don't know that it'll ever get anywhere, but it keeps the synapses running.

No offense to any here, but I give this resolution a resounding NO. First of all, any nation, due to just common sense and politics, will want to please certain nations over others. Can we trust nations with obvious and understandable biases to mete out what our borders should be? If a large producer of oil, for example, has a dispute on borders with another nation, who is the commitee going to favor, for the most part? The oil producer, obviously, because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. You may say that the nations may have a say in the matter, but the resolution gives no provisions for this. There are many issues that remain unaddressed. Who decides whether or not the commitee should be brought in? One nation unilaterally? Or both? Who has the final say in the matter? The commitee? The nations? Do both nations have to agree with the commitee's mediation for the dispute to be resolved, or just one? There are just too many ambiguities and potential problems that could result from this resolution. If we don't cover these loopholes and make them clearly covered in the resolution, this resolution will be abused by rich nations to hurt the poor nations.

Rich nations? Perhaps. But I see this more as a struggle between the people in the inner cities and those in the outskirts. They'll be the ones experiencing the problem first-hand. The city people won't care.

Daddy! Look! A UFO! Out the north window!
No offense to any here, but I give this resolution a resounding NO. First of all, any nation, due to just common sense and politics, will want to please certain nations over others. Can we trust nations with obvious and understandable biases to mete out what our borders should be? If a large producer of oil, for example, has a dispute on borders with another nation, who is the commitee going to favor, for the most part? The oil producer, obviously, because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. You may say that the nations may have a say in the matter, but the resolution gives no provisions for this. There are many issues that remain unaddressed. Who decides whether or not the commitee should be brought in? One nation unilaterally? Or both? Who has the final say in the matter? The commitee? The nations? Do both nations have to agree with the commitee's mediation for the dispute to be resolved, or just one? There are just too many ambiguities and potential problems that could result from this resolution. If we don't cover these loopholes and make them clearly covered in the resolution, this resolution will be abused by rich nations to hurt the poor nations.

Well, see, the resolution says the committee will be just a mediator, not an arbitrator. It will just help nations come to an agreement. Everything will have to be agreed upon. It's just, like, helping us work out our differences and stuff, and live in, like, harmony!

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

Interesting to see the justifications for this resolution:
Well, I was thinking that if a nation colonized a new territory, and didn't realize there were indigenous peoples there, they would have a de facto border. Now, they wouldn't know to dispute it, because they wouldn't know about them, but when the resolution passed, the Gnomes would march into their legislature and mandate them to recognize the border, hence protecting the indigenous people from invasion.
Quick, the FOR button, I can't click it fast enough.

True, although some nations may have agreed on "uncontested" territory, where neither truly owns it. If they are forced who decides on the control, conflict might ignite.That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means...

The Dominion of Mandrivia is in full support of this.

In a split vote in the Elleltian Communist Party's Politburo today in New Stalingrad the majority not finding favor with this resolution has urged a dis-favorable vote on this resolution.

In Effect Ellelt has voted against this proposal as we feel that this proposal will not effectively deal with international boarder disputes although we do agree that diplomacy should be exhausted prior to going to war. However, Nations can already do that on their own without the UN meddling in it. Further Regions do have influence on their members and can be used a impromptu mediators to help maintain the peace.

War is a fact of Life in NS and no amount of moderation or diplomacy will rid our world of it.

Further, We would like to thank Gruenberg for his enlightening comments on the subject.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The entirety of my commentary has been:
- quoting an article from the RL UN Charter
- quoting something Ceorana said
- a line introducing the above
- a sarcastic throwaway after that

You mindless sycophant. Who are you again? There are so many two-bit trolls these days, it's difficult to keep track.

And those four articles highlighted the absurdity of the proposal.

Not to mention that this is very much against our principle that nations have a right to go to war, even if diplomacy hasn't been exhausted. That and we don't like gnomes crossing our boundaries. They sometimes get stuck in our tank treads and well its quite messy and puts the tank out of commission for 12 hours while our troops scrape gnome out of the gears. Those buggers are hard to see you know.

As for being a two-bit sycophant, I would have expected I would have warranted at least a dollar...Oh well cant have everything in life. :p

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

As for being a two-bit sycophant
I believe he called you a "mindless sycophant". The "two-bit" comment was in reference to trolling.

Oh, and when does this vote end?

Which ever. We voted against, as the Politburo directed. It matters little whether I am called a sycophant or a troll. Although I still think I should have warranted at least a whole dollar.

V.K.

I just meant your sucking up made no sense, as I have made no enlightening comments: only the sort of empty, petty sneers that appear to be catching on as post-gold amongst some newbies, like you, at the moment.

Whoa, let's calm down, girls.

I'm calm - just confused.

(Or at least I was calm, you mysogynist fuck.)

Well lets put it this way your post with the snide comments to something Ceorana, put into perspective the actual impact of the proposal which left on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth reading left me more than a little bit confused.

So upon thinking about as I went about my normal business, I came upon the conclusion of reading the snide comments on the Jolt Forum...Yours just happened to be the best.

I would have hoped that you would have considered that you were able to put a complex issue into perspective quickly and efficiently with a few jibes as a compliment...but I guess not.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

You understood what Ceorana said??? Do share, because the rest of us have no fucking clue.

And no, I don't think that having someone stand at the edge of the circle and shout "yeah!" when I'm being a petty, schoolyard bully is a compliment: it's annoying when Cluichstan does it, and it's annoying when random newbies do it, too.

I'll shut up now.

Actually I do, it went something like this:

Blah Blah, Fluff, Fluff, the gnomes are gonna come and tell you lot where your boarders are whether you like it or not.

or something to that effect.

Not exactly something that I would support.

VK.

I'm calm - just confused.

(Or at least I was calm, you mysogynist fuck.)

Looks like somebody cannot keep their temper down. Be cool, it was just a joke.:rolleyes: :eek:

How about all of you calm down? I'm not sure if it's something in the water, but the amount of out of character sniping is reaching intolerable levels.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Hirota votes FOR.

War is a fact of Life in NS and no amount of moderation or diplomacy will rid our world of it.Really?

Precisely how can a NS nation be forced into war?

The Republic of Gerontas votes FOR.

Really?

Precisely how can a NS nation be forced into war?Very true, especially given the wide ownership of IGNORE cannons.

And now, a comment from Red Hot Blonde:

Our current representative, Flash is currently in the Antarctic Oasis in a three way competition for the highly prized position of delegate to the AO, currently held by our beloved representative from Gruenberg. In his absense I have been deputized to speak for the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins.

I'm only a secretary. I only havea high school diploma. So can someone explain how this is "global disarmerment?" Why should we slash our military spending in order to have the UN enforce things that are not in dispute in the first place?

Retired Werepenguins will vote against this resolution. Unless of course we can either be given a convincing argument or a convincing bribe to the contrary.

I will have to vote against this as many territory disputes are related to religion and therefore it will not only be hard to resolve but it will not be lasting, causing more conflicts.

Part of what makes the UN great is that nations would only join if they agreed to its standards, meaning that backwater nations full of religious conflicts would have to grow up. The standards in place are (ideally) made as universal as possible for all member nations, which is why they are voted upon by all member nations.

Placing the UN as arbitor in border conflicts instead of resorting to throwing rocks or nukes is one step toward maturity as a global community. You don't have to give up sovereignty in order to take steps that show the world that your nation is dedicated to evolving out of the ape stage.

The Tetrad votes FOR.

Very true, especially given the wide ownership of IGNORE cannons.Or, in our case, peace songs (invariably accompanied by large colorful signs and tambourines).“All we are saying, is you've been IGNORED...”Seriously, while the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property is committed to knee-jerk support for anything that appears to promote world peace, we are baffled by the need for this. In NationStates, border disputes - like war - can only occur between willing partners. If you don't want one, all you have to do is (dis)believe.

Really?

Precisely how can a NS nation be forced into war?

OOC: RP'ed IC pressure. Unless they never deal with anyone at any time ever outside of their own nation, there will be someone who has some effect on them that you can get at. There is bound to be someone who is willing to go to war or RP economic sanctions and the like which will have some detrimental effect on the target nation, leaving them little option. Of course, massive batteries of IGNORE cannons are also very useful in that area.

You're right, of course. For the most part, in this world, war is consensual and cannot be forced.

Very true, especially given the wide ownership of IGNORE cannons.Ignore Cannons are for the weak.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means...

OOC: Just got an idea for a new member of my UN delegation... :cool:

You understood what Ceorana said??? Do share, because the rest of us have no fucking clue.

And no, I don't think that having someone stand at the edge of the circle and shout "yeah!" when I'm being a petty, schoolyard bully is a compliment: it's annoying when Cluichstan does it, and it's annoying when random newbies do it, too.

I'll shut up now.

OOC: Please do. Your juvenile jabs at me grow tiresome. :rolleyes:

And now IC:

Daddy, there are some rogue apostrophes in someone's post that you need to sort out!


Well, see, if nations have a way to resolve their arguments using their words, instead of their AK-47s, they might use them. See, like, at my school, we just got this thing called "mediators", which are like sixth graders who help us third-graders work out our problems peacefully. Really. Like, it's awesome, 'cause I don't get beat up so much no more. And I like pie. Is there any around?

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

Don't mind me. I'm just here for the pie.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

THe audience of the UN assembly gasps with astonishment(and groans of chagrin) when they see Sen. Sulla sit down at the Palentine delegation. He smiles and says,

"I'm back! did you miss me? Actually Mick got roughed up a bit by some bad hombres he was investigating, so it falls to me to give the Palentine response, you lucky sods. I'm probally going to vote for, but only in the interest of keeping other nations safe. You see, standing Palentine government policy is to recognize the sancity of national borders. you respect uurs, then we'll respect yours. Send tanks and stuff with settlers, across our national borders, without our permission, and we'll nuke you back to the stone age. Pretty simple,really. So you see, I'm only voting FOR out of concern for my fellow man. :D After all, I'm just a harmless little fuzzball who has the milk of human kindness flowing by the quart through every vein.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Deputy Prime Minister

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes FOR this fine resolution. Excellently crafted and narrowly focused. Well done.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCMG
Ambassador to the United Nations
CoS

.. when I'm being a petty, schoolyard bullyMr. Pyandran, is that you? One would think the answer to your problem is obvious....

As for the resolution, the open acknowledgment of borders and the encouragement of this body in its full force for the use of diplomacy and mediation is a good thing. Rubina happily votes FOR.

So my vote here is a most definite yes.

Ignore Cannons are for the weak.

As is the execution of most NS wars. :p

Daddy! Look! A UFO! Out the north window!


Well, see, the resolution says the committee will be just a mediator, not an arbitrator. It will just help nations come to an agreement. Everything will have to be agreed upon. It's just, like, helping us work out our differences and stuff, and live in, like, harmony!

Billy Webster
Student, Central Stormdale Elementary

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;

You may say that everything has to be agreed upon, but that is not what is written. Nations tend to abuse even resolutions that are spelled out clearly, much less ones with loopholes. While I commend the motives of this resolution, original intent rarely counts for anything because it's too debatable. What is on the resolution is there, and whatever loopholes exist can't be filled in just by saying "Everything will have to be agreed upon." That is not what the resolution says. So while I, again, commend and applaud the motives of this resolution, I think it is too ambiguous and leaves too much to interpretation for me to support.
Furthermore, even if everything did have to be agreed on (which is not said in the resolution,) you'd be surprised how many poor nations will succumb to hidden behind-the-scenes international pressure before anything can be decided. All a powerful nation has to do is stall for time, and start coincidentally putting navy patrols around it, and stop sending aid money, and pass tariffs on the nation's exports, and suddenly that small nation will agree to anything. This just doesn't seem like it will work.

You may say that everything has to be agreed upon, but that is not what is written. Nations tend to abuse even resolutions that are spelled out clearly, much less ones with loopholes. While I commend the motives of this resolution, original intent rarely counts for anything because it's too debatable. What is on the resolution is there, and whatever loopholes exist can't be filled in just by saying "Everything will have to be agreed upon." That is not what the resolution says. So while I, again, commend and applaud the motives of this resolution, I think it is too ambiguous and leaves too much to interpretation for me to support.
Furthermore, even if everything did have to be agreed on (which is not said in the resolution,) you'd be surprised how many poor nations will succumb to hidden behind-the-scenes international pressure before anything can be decided. All a powerful nation has to do is stall for time, and start coincidentally putting navy patrols around it, and stop sending aid money, and pass tariffs on the nation's exports, and suddenly that small nation will agree to anything. This just doesn't seem like it will work.

But having to agree on things is the default. Nothing can happen without war unless one of two conditions is met: it's mandated by the UN, or it's agreed upon.

Art Webster
UN Ambassador

But having to agree on things is the default. Nothing can happen without war unless one of two conditions is met: it's mandated by the UN, or it's agreed upon.

Art Webster
UN Ambassador

Furthermore, even if everything did have to be agreed on (which is not said in the resolution,) you'd be surprised how many poor nations will succumb to hidden behind-the-scenes international pressure before anything can be decided. All a powerful nation has to do is stall for time, and start coincidentally putting navy patrols around it, and stop sending aid money, and pass tariffs on the nation's exports, and suddenly that small nation will agree to anything. This just doesn't seem like it will work.
Even if everything was officially agreed upon, that still doesn't mean the less powerful nations won't get the shorter end of the stick. See above. And it's not necessarily default that it be agreed upon; look at treaties throughout history (sorry if I'm breaking a fourth wall here; just trying to defend my point): Germany didn't exactly agree to the treaty of Versailles, which considerably reduced its borders. However, being in a much weaker position in international politics and military strength, it was forced to accept it. In the same way, international pressure, even those not involving wars, can force a weaker nation to accept a proposal.

Even if everything was officially agreed upon, that still doesn't mean the less powerful nations won't get the shorter end of the stick. See above. And it's not necessarily default that it be agreed upon; look at treaties throughout history (sorry if I'm breaking a fourth wall here; just trying to defend my point): Germany didn't exactly agree to the treaty of Versailles, which considerably reduced its borders. However, being in a much weaker position in international politics and military strength, it was forced to accept it. In the same way, international pressure, even those not involving wars, can force a weaker nation to accept a proposal.

Once again I will say something that I'm sad to say, but according to my perception of history, and the fact that the UN has no army, it's an evidence that most of the time the less powerful nations will get the shorter end of the stick.

So for me the question is more: what to do in order the less powerful nations get a "less short" stick in the present and the future, even if not as long as it should be? And I think that this proposal help.

Hackonia votes for the mutual recognition of borders - we hope this will help stem the rising influx of invaders seeping in from the coastal regions into Star Trek.

Originally, we supported this resolution, but after further review we have decided to change our vote to against.

Frankly, we see some of the provisions as having unintended consequences, and this proposal as a noble attempt to solve a very difficult problem. Furthermore, we must state our ideological convictions in the old adage that "war is a continuation of politics by other means," and the applications to borders disputes inherent in that thought.

To say it plainly, we believe that land being the foundation of the state and nation, it is necessary for border wars and other disputes to be fought over without intermediate arbitration. It is this thinking, that nations are born in battles over land, that drives out vote.

We commend the honorable represenatives from Love and esterel on their proposal, but must respectfully vote against.

Most courteously,

Firstly, to say a nation is born of disputes like war is totally preposterous. A nation is built by the will of the people based on an idea, and then if need be defended.

But, on the other hand, it would seem as if this document infringes on national sovereignty, sovereignty being one of the key elements of the United Nations. Using a third party, who might have no prior knowledge on the issue mind you, would most likely be objected to by nations (especially authoritarian nations). And, not only is national sovereignty an issue, but who will be moderating the CMRoB? Who will provide funds for it? Where will it be held? Passages about this new committee are not nearly specific enough.

Although the nation would be more than happy to see the issue of border disputes addressed again in a more specific document, the United Socialist States of Platotia reluctantly vote no.

Albert Folls
Ambassador

Originally, we supported this resolution, but after further review we have decided to change our vote to against.

Frankly, we see some of the provisions as having unintended consequences, and this proposal as a noble attempt to solve a very difficult problem. Furthermore, we must state our ideological convictions in the old adage that "war is a continuation of politics by other means," and the applications to borders disputes inherent in that thought.

To say it plainly, we believe that land being the foundation of the state and nation, it is necessary for border wars and other disputes to be fought over without intermediate arbitration. It is this thinking, that nations are born in battles over land, that drives out vote.

We commend the honorable represenatives from Love and esterel on their proposal, but must respectfully vote against.

Most courteously,

I fail to see how that is a reason to vote against this resolution.

You can still engage in warfare ... it is just that the international community will be more likely to view one nation as an aggressor state should they ignore a mediated border or previously recognized border.

What the resolution is likely to do is reduce the chances nations will get into conflicts over border disputes.

H.Katzman

The Nation of Paulfus sees nothing very convincing about this resolution. Upon reading this discussion we will not be voting in favor. We will either abstain all together or vote against it.

Fellow Members of the United Nations,

The Republic of the Northwest Americas finds this resolution, pertaining to the final clause, as incoherent:

"NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the
case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another
dimension) of our NS multiverse."

The Republic of the Northwest Americas respectfully inquires as to the validity of the above statement mentioned in the Mutual Recognition of Borders resolution. The Republic of the Northwest Americas asks how exactly it is possible for several nations to all own the same single territory?

Due to the final ambigious clause of the resolution, The Republic of the Northwest Americas finds its own borders in jeopardy, and will hence, most courteously, opt to vote AGAINST the resolution of Mutual Recognition of Borders.

Sincerley,

President Eric J. Hill

I think this is a good idea.

I fail to see how that is a reason to vote against this resolution.

You can still engage in warfare ... it is just that the international community will be more likely to view one nation as an aggressor state should they ignore a mediated border or previously recognized border.

What the resolution is likely to do is reduce the chances nations will get into conflicts over border disputes.

H.Katzman

Respectfully, this is exactly our point. It is our belief that the international community is better served by avoiding any interference in border disputes. If the intent of the resolution is to reduce the chance of conflict over borders, we oppose for the reasons I previously stated. This is not simply an argument of National Sovereignty, but one built upon the idea that arbitration cannot effectively solve border disputes.

Think of it in terms of the status quo. Why enforce the equilibrium of the disputed border? Arbitration makes no guarantees of peace or safety, in fact it is my own personal opinion that it in fact exacerbates the situation, making the nations even more secure in the assertions that the land belongs to them.

If not through conflict or conciliation, then not at all.

But beyond the philosophical and practical applications of the resolution, we believe that it will open a pandora's box of legislative woes, bureacratic deadlock, and needless arbitration. Furthermore, the final clause gives us great cause for alarm, both because of it's vagueness and it's implication.

Most courteously,

Fellow UN member nations,

It is with great honor that I present to you the decision of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA. After much internal public discussion, The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA vote against this proposal.

Thank you,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

To say it plainly, we believe that land being the foundation of the state and nation, it is necessary for border wars and other disputes to be fought over without intermediate arbitration. It is this thinking, that nations are born in battles over land, that drives out vote.So basically you are giving the middle finger to international peace and security, at least that's how I read it.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that can prevent loss of life is a good thing, ergo anything that can prevent war is a good thing.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that can prevent loss of life is a good thing, ergo anything that can prevent war is a good thing.Hm. So you support giving the entirety of the human race full frontal lobotomies, then?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Hm. So you support giving the entirety of the human race full frontal lobotomies, then?

Sheik Nadnerb briefly pauses from gorging himself on pie and looks up, his face covered in blueberry filling.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

He grabs the bottle of Cluichstani whiskey from his desk and takes a generous slug, then slams his face back down into the pie before him.

Hm. So you support giving the entirety of the human race full frontal lobotomies, then?I understood that most had already undergone such a procedure. Anyhow, if anyone wishes to present such a solution to the UN, it would be voted for on the strength of it's argument. :p

In seriousness, I suspect compulsory frontal lobotomies might be viewed by many as a breach of human rights, regardless of the results towards promoting international peace and security.

In seriousness, I suspect compulsory frontal lobotomies might be viewed by many as a breach of human rights, regardless of the results towards promoting international peace and security.Perhaps, but they would certainly reduce the loss of human life. Barbaric as the procedure may be, it is quite effective in reducing the violent tendencies of your species. Thus, since you believe that anything that reduces violence and death is "good", you must be in favor of such a course of action. Indeed, I would expect you to begin drafting just such a proposal. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

Or were you just spouting platitudes and hoping nobody would call you on it?


- Vermithrax Pejorative
"Buy war bonds!"

So basically you are giving the middle finger to international peace and security, at least that's how I read it.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that can prevent loss of life is a good thing, ergo anything that can prevent war is a good thing.

As usual, the representative from Hirota misses our point and jumps to an erroneous conclusion. We are all for internation peace and security, strong nations protecting weaker ones, or weak nations banding together for collective defense is quite alright in our book. Border disputes are something else entirely.

In the case of an invasive war, the premise is simple: one state wants the land of another. State A knows the land belongs to State B, but enters by force and makes the land A. That's not the case with a disputed border, because both State A and State B both lay claim to the land.

Before the argument "ah, but cannot an agressor nation simply dispute a border and use it as an excuse?" is made, the answer is no. The land is very clearly not disputed, isn't it? No history of dispute, no dispute, all that remains is simple aggression. Common sense.

I thank the representative from Hirota for allowing me more time to defend and elucidate on my opinions. Your wit and clarity has given us some wonderful laughs.

Most courteously,

You have our full support!

Sarobia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/iconsofwales/images/daleks.jpg

The Daleks respect no borders. This proposal must be exterminated.

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!!!

Perhaps, but they would certainly reduce the loss of human life.Debatable, especially given the risks of such a procedure.Barbaric as the procedure may be, it is quite effective in reducing the violent tendencies of your species.
Thus, since you believe that anything that reduces violence and death is "good", you must be in favor of such a course of action.Within reason old boy. After all I also believe anything that promotes human rights is a good thing as well.Indeed, I would expect you to begin drafting just such a proposal. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.I could do with a laugh. Perhaps some other time.Or were you just spouting platitudes and hoping nobody would call you on it?I prefer to think of it as oversimplifying it. I'm guilty of that at times.

Now, shall we continue this highly pointless hijack, or shall we let this get back on topic?

I thank the representative from Hirota for allowing me more time to defend and elucidate on my opinions.Like Mik said, I fail to see why this is a reason to vote against this, but your reasons are your own I guess, and thanks for attempting to clarify them.

Minyos and the ICU Delegate have voted for this fine proposal.

*wipes away a tear* There is life in the old UN yet!

Restored my faith, this one - and the strong FOR vote as well.

Cheers comrades.

After finally deciphering the legalese, the Politburo of the ECP has maintained that we are against this proposal.

Forced mediation of international conflicts will not produce any meaningful progress in the interests of international peace and security. Indeed history of the Human Species, and perhaps others as well, has born out that the boundaries of nations are the result of "historical accident". In other words they are the result of religion, previous war/colonization, and internal conflicts.

As such we cannot support this measure as it would prevent new nations from being born on the ruins of old or destroyed ones.

Oh and something about Brunzov not being allowed to liberate whomever he wants has something to do with our opposition to this travesty of a proposal.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I Support It Best Of Luck

You know, I originally planned on abstaining on this resolution. However, the arguements presented by the resolutions supporters have convinced me to do otherwise. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We've been paying close attention to the debate on this resolution in this and other forums. Unfortunately, we've come to the conclusion that the resolution accomplishes nothing worth while.

The first clause requires nations to recognize undisputed borders. But the resolution does nothing to prevent nations from rescinding, altering, or simply ignoring that recognition.

A committee is created to provide mediation in border disputes. But there is nothing that requires mediation to be employed. So nations that want to peacefully resolve disputes may attempt mediation; those that don't will simply roll out the tanks. Also, if nations wish to have the services of a mediator, there are thousands of nations and regional governments available to do it. Surely they could find a suitable, unbiased candidate.

The resolution is essentially toothless. The only possibly substantial provision is the creation of the committee. But that committee is of questionable value and definitely unnecessary. We see the only actual effect of the resolution as being a potential blocker to more worthwhile legislation on border issues. Ausserland has voted AGAINST the resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

He grabs the bottle of Cluichstani whiskey from his desk and takes a generous slug, then slams his face back down into the pie before him.

*sweetly*

Would the sheik like some assistance with slamming his face into pie?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

*sweetly*

Would the sheik like some assistance with slamming his face into pie?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

No, but thanks. I'm done with this one. There is one thing you could do for me, though...

BRING ME MORE PIE!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

After finally deciphering the legalese... Forced mediation of international conflicts will not produce any meaningful progressPerhaps the Politburo should undertake a reanalysis as the resolution at vote does not included forced mediation. Indeed, a number of delegates are complaining of that lack.
Indeed history of the Human Species, and perhaps others as well, has born out that the boundaries of nations are the result of "historical accident". In other words they are the result of religion, previous war/colonization, and internal conflicts.They are also frequently the result of natural geographical formations. The source of borders frankly is irrelevant.
As such we cannot support this measure as it would prevent new nations from being born on the ruins of old or destroyed ones.Your conclusion is surprising and flies in the face of logic. Recognition of stable, pre-existing borders would prevent a nation's neighbors from interfering with an internal revolution much more frequently than it would prevent an external, military-initiated imposition of revolution.

Unfortunately, we've come to the conclusion that the resolution accomplishes nothing worth while.Although we respect Mr. Olembe's analysis, we do not agree that this resolution will do nothing. An agreement between the many nations of the UN to not initiate new border disputes and to enter into good faith resolutions of current border disputes is not to be sneezed at. We also submit that had the resolution at vote been written to force mediation (as Ambassador Khernynko mistakenly claims) and mandate compliance there would have been even more screams of national sovereignty and 'I'll make war if I want' from a goodly number of delegates who currently criticize it for being too weak... a situation of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't' if you will.


Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Confederated Hells of Rubina

BRING ME MORE PIE!
A large green skinned woman appears before Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich.
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-187123521.jpg (http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/187123521.jpg)"I am ORC guardian of the PIE!"
"Do you want your pie with or without ice cream?"

Without please. Ice cream just gets in the way when I try to ram my face into the pie.

By the way, for an orc chick, you ain't half-bad...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Although we respect Mr. Olembe's analysis, we do not agree that this resolution will do nothing. An agreement between the many nations of the UN to not initiate new border disputes and to enter into good faith resolutions of current border disputes is not to be sneezed at. We also submit that had the resolution at vote been written to force mediation (as Ambassador Khernynko mistakenly claims) and mandate compliance there would have been even more screams of national sovereignty and 'I'll make war if I want' from a goodly number of delegates who currently criticize it for being too weak... a situation of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't' if you will.

Achooooo!

In any case, the resolution is indeed a fine example of a situation of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't'. This is the case with most resolutions. Fortunately, I don't give a damn either way, so there'll be no damning from me.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Although we respect Mr. Olembe's analysis, we do not agree that this resolution will do nothing. An agreement between the many nations of the UN to not initiate new border disputes and to enter into good faith resolutions of current border disputes is not to be sneezed at. We also submit that had the resolution at vote been written to force mediation (as Ambassador Khernynko mistakenly claims) and mandate compliance there would have been even more screams of national sovereignty and 'I'll make war if I want' from a goodly number of delegates who currently criticize it for being too weak... a situation of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't' if you will.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Confederated Hells of Rubina

We appreciate the honorable representative's courteous respose to our comments. In reply, we'd suggest that passage of this resolution is in no way an agreement by the nations of the UN to enter into good-faith resolution of border disputes. NSUN resolutions are law, not agreements. We, as member nations, are bound to follow the provisions of the law. That does not constitute any sort of agreement to abide by its intent.

The representative is quite correct that any substantive requirements on this subject would bring cries of anguish from those who see any meaningful action by the UN as an unwarranted intrusion on their national sovereignty. But, from what we've seen, most of them oppose this toothless measure as well. So we're not sure how much of an impact that would have. Some of us who do have concerns about unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of nations by the NSUN would support a proposal that took meaningful, appropriate measures to reduce the probability of armed conflict over border issues. We believe this is an area where the NSUN could have a proper and constructive impact. Unfortunately, we believe this resolution fails to do that.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Without please. Ice cream just gets in the way when I try to ram my face into the pie.

Clapping her hands she says, "Then BEHOLD, the Cherries Jubilie Pie."
With that an exceptionally large pie appears before the sheik.
"You will note the well defined borders of this pie that are beyond dispute."

Suddenly, the hair of several proponents of the resolution up for vote suddenly catches fire. "Of course we are still working on the 'jubilie' part of the pie. Watch out for posible cherry pits!" UN Gnomes arrive to douse the flaming heads of the debaters.

"'Mutual recognition of Borders' you say? I much prefer Barnes and Noble!"

All this resolution does is form the CMRoB, a committee with no authority or ability to accomplish anything. The proposed resolution has no way to ensure the CMRoB is a neutral third party and essentially solves nothing while wasting time expanding this already overgrown beurocracy.

The requirement of recognition of undisputed borders is perhaps the most laughable, if they're truly undisputed, they are already fully recognised.

This resolution will not be enough to stop a land dispute should it arise, I'm sorry, but a nation that is willing to go to war will, far more often than not, have already attempted to claim what they believe is their's peacefully. To have a committee will affect nothing.

Achooooo!*hands Representative Dioce a hanky*
...we'd suggest that passage of this resolution is in no way an agreement by the nations of the UN to enter into good-faith resolution of border disputes. NSUN resolutions are law, not agreements. We, as member nations, are bound to follow the provisions of the law. That does not constitute any sort of agreement to abide by its intent.As you point out, member nations are indeed bound to abide the law. Conformance to the law contained in this resolution would have the same effect as an agreement. I suggest that the use of the verb recognise in this proposal was not done haphazardly. Legal recognition includes acceptance of validity and support of the claim. Mutual recognition would entail a de facto agreement that one's neighbors' borders are valid and not to be challenged.
Some of us who do have concerns about unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of nations by the NSUN would support a proposal that took meaningful, appropriate measures to reduce the probability of armed conflict over border issues. We believe this is an area where the NSUN could have a proper and constructive impact. Unfortunately, we believe this resolution fails to do that.As has been noted on any number of recent resolutions, such a strong resolution has failed to materialize. Were one to be written and acceptable to a large enough group, the resolution at vote, if passed, would be easily repealed, no? So, until that resolution emerges, this one can do what good it can.
The proposed resolution has no way to ensure the CMRoB is a neutral third partyWe suggest you do not understand the nature of UN committees.Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.
a nation that is willing to go to war will, far more often than not, have already attempted to claim what they believe is their's peacefully.You underestimate both certain nations' love of war and the pressure to mediation the international community can place on its members. Frequently, border wars are the result of poor communication between the involved parties and the voluntary addition of a third party (the committee in this case) is enough to settle such disputes.

We've been paying close attention to the debate on this resolution in this and other forums. Unfortunately, we've come to the conclusion that the resolution accomplishes nothing worth while.

The first clause requires nations to recognize undisputed borders. But the resolution does nothing to prevent nations from rescinding, altering, or simply ignoring that recognition.

A committee is created to provide mediation in border disputes. But there is nothing that requires mediation to be employed. So nations that want to peacefully resolve disputes may attempt mediation; those that don't will simply roll out the tanks. Also, if nations wish to have the services of a mediator, there are thousands of nations and regional governments available to do it. Surely they could find a suitable, unbiased candidate.

The resolution is essentially toothless. The only possibly substantial provision is the creation of the committee. But that committee is of questionable value and definitely unnecessary. We see the only actual effect of the resolution as being a potential blocker to more worthwhile legislation on border issues. Ausserland has voted AGAINST the resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Love and esterel position is that it's great for the UN to be able to have both mild and significant clauses and resolutions. UN resolutions are voted by thousands of nations in the NSUN, the debates bring many nations to talk to these topics, and when they pass UN resolutions are read and implemented by many nations. It's why I consider a mild clause not only as a mild clause but also as "advertisment". And as it doesn't seem to me that "advertisment" is ineffective, it doesn't seem to me either that mild clauses, read by thousands of diplomats, in mild or significant proposals are worthless.

Mild clauses can also be written with a long-term objective, as structural changes in attitude (for humans at least as I'm not an expert about structural changes in attitude of other species ) are definitely slow.

If this resolution pass many more borders will be recognized, Furthermore nations wanting to clarify their dispute will have another choice (CMRoB) when choosing a third party mediator, and as Ausserland is a member of this International organisation (NSUN), I suppose that you agree that this agency of this International organisation, you belong to, can help on international matters.

That say, I never said that my proposal is the best possible on that topic, it's just the best I was able to do. And as the UN has no army, I didn't find on that forum how this proposal can be reasonably be stronger in strengh.

Ausserland, I had always feel sad when people critics a resolution only about its mild strengh without saying how it can be stronger. In particular I'm surprised to read some people criticizing mild strengh resolution only because they not mandates anything, when these same people (co-)authored a mild proposal, even a real blocker one, and usually defend national sovereignty!

About blockers I don't see how this is a blocker. A blocker is a clause who say that nations can choose to do this or this as they see fit. This proposal URGES members whithout forcing them, sorry, it's really different.

Fellow Members of the United Nations,

The Republic of the Northwest Americas finds this resolution, pertaining to the final clause, as incoherent:

"NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the
case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another
dimension) of our NS multiverse."

The Republic of the Northwest Americas respectfully inquires as to the validity of the above statement mentioned in the Mutual Recognition of Borders resolution. The Republic of the Northwest Americas asks how exactly it is possible for several nations to all own the same single territory?

Due to the final ambigious clause of the resolution, The Republic of the Northwest Americas finds its own borders in jeopardy, and will hence, most courteously, opt to vote AGAINST the resolution of Mutual Recognition of Borders.

Sincerley,

President Eric J. Hill

OOC:
The NB in this proposal is written mainly for fun and to be in adequation with the "collective fiction" which NS is all about.

We didn't include it directly in the clause, but once the point has been raised, we were happy to include it on a NB.

Multiverse, applied to NS, allows several members to claim "Texas" as their own territory, as they had just to be in different planes (different dimensions) in order that to be possible. It's more fun, we like that.:D

We've been paying close attention to the debate on this resolution in this and other forums. Unfortunately, we've come to the conclusion that the resolution accomplishes nothing worth while.

The first clause requires nations to recognize undisputed borders. But the resolution does nothing to prevent nations from rescinding, altering, or simply ignoring that recognition.

A committee is created to provide mediation in border disputes. But there is nothing that requires mediation to be employed. So nations that want to peacefully resolve disputes may attempt mediation; those that don't will simply roll out the tanks. Also, if nations wish to have the services of a mediator, there are thousands of nations and regional governments available to do it. Surely they could find a suitable, unbiased candidate.

The resolution is essentially toothless. The only possibly substantial provision is the creation of the committee. But that committee is of questionable value and definitely unnecessary. We see the only actual effect of the resolution as being a potential blocker to more worthwhile legislation on border issues. Ausserland has voted AGAINST the resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ambassador Olembe,

All resolutions are essentially toothless. That is the nature of a voluntary organization such as the United Nations, where nations not only have always had the ability to not comply with UN resolutions, but if they find the organization too oppressive, the option to leave always exists.

My government does not feel it is fair to characterize this resolution as a blocker. In fact, Mikitivity applauds this resolution as a significant step forward towards this organization recognizing international borders.

You stated that nothing in the present resolution prohibits nations from rescinding borders, but if stronger language were adopted, a repeal could immediately take away everything. The stronger a resolution and less friendly to domestic rule, the greater the likelihood that it will be repealed.

Furthermore, if literally 1,000s of other nations recognize the borders between two neighbors and one of those nations decides to no longer recognize the legitimate boundaries of its neighbor, the remaining 999 nations will realistically honor the borders they previously did.

One of the arguments used AGAINST this resolution has been that borders should change. While this is undoubtedly a good point, language that would permanently LOCK borders would actually give merit to that argument.

Finally, the committee would be created on an ad hoc basis, but given that its mandate would come from the two parties of any border dispute and the UN itself, its chance for success is much greater, as it will have a larger pool of third parties to draw upon and to later witness any agreement reached. The key is that mediation is a highly valued skill, and being able to call upon other UN members via this resolution to possibly act in good faith as a mediator may open doors that might be otherwise closed.

For example, while my government would like to help other nations, the reality is the OTHER existing UN laws make it much safer for a Mikitivitan ambassador to travel to two UN member states and help them mediate a border dispute. Furthermore, they too would have an easier time to travel to Mikitivity to use a third / neutral party to host the mediations. Non-UN members are less subject to UN resolutions, thus there is greater risk in those nations.

I'd ask that if you feel that my arguments are solid that you ask your government to consider abstaining from this resolution, though personally I'd hope that you might agree with some of my government's position and consider changing your position.

Howie T. Katzman

Debatable, especially given the risks of such a procedure.I do not believe there were many fatalities, even when it was little more than an ice-pick through the tear duct.

Within reason old boy.I know it's hard to tell with the fangs and wings and burny death, but I'm a she. I'll have the Doctor submit my dossier soon.

I prefer to think of it as oversimplifying it. I'm guilty of that at times.What are platitudes other than oversimplifications? Still, you have a point on the hijack, and I've had my fun.


- Vermithrax Pejorative

We appreciate the courteous and thoughtful critique of our position by our distinguished friend and colleague from Mikitivity. We'd like to respond to some specific points.

All resolutions are essentially toothless. That is the nature of a voluntary organization such as the United Nations, where nations not only have always had the ability to not comply with UN resolutions, but if they find the organization too oppressive, the option to leave always exists.

We cannot agree that all resolutions are toothless. Membership in the NSUN is certainly voluntary. It seems logical to us that nations would choose to join because they saw certain advantages and benefits. If they leave the organization, those advantages and benefits would be lost. So the "teeth" of any resolution consists of the loss of those if the nation resigns. Otherwise, it must obey the provisions of the resolution.

My government does not feel it is fair to characterize this resolution as a blocker. In fact, Mikitivity applauds this resolution as a significant step forward towards this organization recognizing international borders.

The representative is correct that this resolution may not technically be a blocker. But we know for a fact that members have believed that the existence of a resolution on a certain subject constitutes a block. And people react to their perceptions. The existence of an ineffectual resolution can serve as a "psychological blocker" to more effective legislation. Knowledgeable and savvy NSUN members wouldn't be caught up by this, but we've seen a number of good proposals put forward by people who were as yet unsophisticated in the arcane workings of this body. We believe that ineffectual legislation which discourages development of better is damaging to the NSUN.

You stated that nothing in the present resolution prohibits nations from rescinding borders, but if stronger language were adopted, a repeal could immediately take away everything. The stronger a resolution and less friendly to domestic rule, the greater the likelihood that it will be repealed.

The representative is correct that the stronger a resolution, the more likelihood that opponents will attempt a repeal. But are we now to reject legislation on the basis that it might at some point be repealed? We surely hope not. Much of the NSUN's best legislation would never have passed if that criterion was used.

Furthermore, if literally 1,000s of other nations recognize the borders between two neighbors and one of those nations decides to no longer recognize the legitimate boundaries of its neighbor, the remaining 999 nations will realistically honor the borders they previously did.

Nothing in the resolution talks about thousands of nations recognizing any border. Nothing talks about nations honoring borders. It talks about single nations recognizing their own undisputed borders with other single nations. If the intent of the proposal was to have those borders definitively established with some sort of NSUN confirmation or codification, it should have said so. It doesn't.

Finally, the committee would be created on an ad hoc basis, but given that its mandate would come from the two parties of any border dispute and the UN itself, its chance for success is much greater, as it will have a larger pool of third parties to draw upon and to later witness any agreement reached. The key is that mediation is a highly valued skill, and being able to call upon other UN members via this resolution to possibly act in good faith as a mediator may open doors that might be otherwise closed.

First, we'd point out that the mediation by the committee would not necessarily come from both parties in the dispute. One party could seek the mediation and the other refuse it. The committee has no power to impose mediation, and the resolution fails to require it. We also cannot accept that the involved parties would have any greater pool to draw on than they have now. If a nation, regional government, or other organization is willing to act as a mediator at the request of this committee, why wouldn't they be willing to do it at the behest of the involved parties? The only possible benefit we can see from this committee is assisting nations to locate mediators. We don't find that sufficient to justify the passage of the resolution.

Ausserland's vote against the resolution stands.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland, I had always feel sad when people critics a resolution only about its mild strengh without saying how it can be stronger. In particular I'm surprised to read some people criticizing mild strengh resolution only because they not mandates anything, when these same people (co-)authored a mild proposal, even a real blocker one, and usually defend national sovereignty!

About blockers I don't see how this is a blocker. A blocker is a clause who say that nations can choose to do this or this as they see fit. This proposal URGES members whithout forcing them, sorry, it's really different.

We're just going to respond to these specific comments, since they seem to be directed at us. We take a much more careful view of legislation than the honorable representative suggests. We would never support or oppose a resolution on the basis of its strength. In every case, we try hard to examine specific provisions and their effects. Is the intent of the resolution worthwhile? Does the resolution do what it intends? Does it do it in an effective way?

In this case, we find the resolution ineffectual. And we believe that having ineffectual resolution on the books discourages members from working on proposals that might do the job properly. We perhaps should have used a more specific term in our earlier comments. We couldn't say for sure if this would be a legal blocker or not. We shouldn't have made that bald statement. Some of the recent decisions by the moderators have lowered our confidence in our ability to predict such things. But we see it as a psychological blocker, whose mere existence on the books could discourage further efforts on the subject.

Finally, the representative has been around this Assembly long enough that he should know our nation does not have any lock-step subservience to the idea of national sovereignty. We have supported a number of resolutions that were opposed by those who are ardent national sovereigntists. And we'd state to the representative that we have no apologies to make for any resolution we co-authored or supported. Since we believe in considering each piece of legislation on its own merits, we find his comments not only faintly insulting, but irrelevant.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We're just going to respond to these specific comments, since they seem to be directed at us. We take a much more careful view of legislation than the honorable representative suggests. We would never support or oppose a resolution on the basis of its strength. In every case, we try hard to examine specific provisions and their effects. Is the intent of the resolution worthwhile? Does the resolution do what it intends? Does it do it in an effective way?

In this case, we find the resolution ineffectual. And we believe that having ineffectual resolution on the books discourages members from working on proposals that might do the job properly. We perhaps should have used a more specific term in our earlier comments. We couldn't say for sure if this would be a legal blocker or not. We shouldn't have made that bald statement. Some of the recent decisions by the moderators have lowered our confidence in our ability to predict such things. But we see it as a psychological blocker, whose mere existence on the books could discourage further efforts on the subject.

Finally, the representative has been around this Assembly long enough that he should know our nation does not have any lock-step subservience to the idea of national sovereignty. We have supported a number of resolutions that were opposed by those who are ardent national sovereigntists. And we'd state to the representative that we have no apologies to make for any resolution we co-authored or supported. Since we believe in considering each piece of legislation on its own merits, we find his comments not only faintly insulting, but irrelevant.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland, I'm sorry if you feel that my post was insulting and I'm sorry if my answer was to you personnally, as it was to answer in the same time to some other posts.

I fully respect you if you vote against this proposal because you think that it should have dealt with this topic differently. I answered you why I think this text has some effects and why it was the best I was able to do and I really understand you if you think my drafting effort was not good enough.

But the reason why I wrote my previous post is I find your mention of blocker and toothess to describe this proposal as insulting and irrelevant, as you are yourself a co-author of a recent real blocker resolution, for which I fail to see more tooths. And as you said:
We perhaps should have used a more specific term in our earlier comments
about "blocker and toothess", I suppose, I would like to thank you for that and then, my turn, would like to withdraw my related comments.

"'Mutual recognition of Borders' you say? I much prefer Barnes and Noble!"

Does Barnes and Noble have coffee shops? And if so, do they serve pie?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

But the reason why I wrote my previous post is I find your mention of blocker and toothess to describe this proposal as insulting and irrelevant, as you are yourself a co-author of a recent real blocker resolution, for which I fail to see more tooths.

The honorable representative is quite right. We did co-author the "Marriage Protection Act", and it is, in the main, a blocker. We're proud to have the name of our nation associated with it.

The problem we have with the representative is that he seems to insist we adopt a terribly simplistic approach to legislation. We should either say "blockers are good" or "blockers are bad" and act accordingly. We're sorry, but we have no intention of doing that. We look at each subject of potential legislation on its own and decide our course of action accordingly.

In the case of a blocker, we look at the potential legislation that would (or, in the case of a "psychological blocker", could) be blocked. What are the chances that good, worthwhile legislation would be blocked? What are the chances that the blocker would help keep this Assembly from wasting its time on trash? What are the chances that worthless, damaging legislation might be passed? Is there any valid reason for the NSUN to be legislating on the subject? We consider the specific subject and make our best judgment on those questions. We will continue to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Does Barnes and Noble have coffee shops? And if so, do they serve pie?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Lorelei Ahlmann stares thoughtfully at the pie on the shelf below her desk. She's contemplating the immense satisfaction she'd get from hurling it at the Sheik from Cluichstan. On the other hand, it's mince pie, and that's her favorite. Oh, well. Maybe another time.

:D

Lorelei Ahlmann stares thoughtfully at the pie on the shelf below her desk. She's contemplating the immense satisfaction she'd get from hurling it at the Sheik from Cluichstan. On the other hand, it's mince pie, and that's her favorite. Oh, well. Maybe another time.

:D

OOC: Okay, I'll stop with the pie stuff, mate. ;)

Bringing this back on topic.

Isn't the UN to help maintain and increase peace? It's true that boarder disputes cause many wars in the world, so why shouldn't this be passed?

Isn't the UN to help maintain and increase peace?

Is it? Where did we decide that?

Is it? Where did we decide that?

Good Gods, Man! You don't need to be giving people ideas like that.

Are nations not entitled to the freedom to determine their own borders? It seems to me that the UN has decided what my sovereign nation should do on its borders. Unfortunately, this resolution will only cause me to increase security at my borders, so as to avoid my conflict being taken over by the obviously larger nations at the UN. This is purposefully written to undermine the sovereignty of smaller nations such as Altamaire, I vehemently oppose this expansion of power to the United Nations!

At the title, this seems alright;however, I cannot stay in the UN if it is to continue to propose resolutions that suppress the rights of nations, and then make their own problems the power of this body to determine.

It's oft been said, "We care more about your nation's security than you do," and in the Federal Republic, impressionable as we all are to mindless sloganeering, we take that maxim to heart. As well we should; after all, we wrote it. When the Kenny Armed Forces violate your borders and terrify your people, you can be sure we only have your nation's best interests at heart. I mean, who doesn't enjoy being entertained and brutally overrun by militant strippers? Who doesn't like penguins? They're revoltingly adorable. I dare you to look at a baby penguin and not squeeze your hands to your breast and go, "awwwww!"

Who doesn't love Ashlee Simpson?

We are gravely concerned about the safety and well-being of all our friends in the international community. Not a day goes by when we do not weep for those whose lives and fortunes have been destroyed by foreign invaders (primarily when we are usually the ones doing all the destruction). Quite frankly, there are very few nations in this body whose credentials on international security trump those of the Federal Republic. (And very few that are so humble about it, for that matter.)

That said, our Creative Solutions Agency has examined this proposal thoroughly and has concluded that there is not anything bearing the smallest shred of merit in its entirety. From the mandate to recognize "undisputed" borders (borders that are already recognized and can be "unrecognized" at the drop of a hat) to the wasteful commission with no mandate, influence or enforcement powers whatsoever, to the errant invocation of the "multiverse" theory, there is plenty of useless baggage to go around with this sorry excuse for UN legislation. A sit-in with Community Property's granola-munching pedants would be much more effective at stopping war than this proposal. Hell, a fwuffy-wuffy teddy bear drive would much more effective than this proposal. A Kawaiian hentai manga convention would stop more wars. A roomful of screaming girls in nighties having a sweaty pillowfight would do more for global stability than this proposal.

We would urge those of you currently undecided on this question to behold the scintillating rantings (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1397) of the Ceoranan delegation before casting your vote. They are a real eye-opener. As for the Federal Republic, having reviewed the proposal, the "arguments" offered in its favor, and fully considered its "ramifications" (or total lack thereof), we stand in strident opposition.

We regret that we ourselves don't have any know-it-all 10-year-old boys on hand to impart their wisdom to you all, but after hearing Amb. Feldstein's terrifying oration (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=277&view=findpost&p=6304521) in Flurthwel, my girls regret that they cannot guarantee their safety. Besides, the kids all flunked their geography exams. Pretty damn hard to quack at length about recognizing international borders when you can't even locate your own on a map, you know what I'm saying?

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Republic leaves you tonight with a touching film I happened to find in my boss's closet, buried underneath a pile of dirty magazines, a videotape he managed to secure from its owners before they were snatched into oblivion along with their homeland. Honored ambassadors, I give you: Girls in nighties having a sweaty pillowfight!

[A screen lowers at the head of the chamber as the lights dim and the Assembly is treated to the projected brilliance of Kawaiian anime featuring giggly, scantily clad girls hurling feather-throwing pillows at each other.

[Chiang turns to George Brown, brandishing a small pipe:]

This Ceoranan crack is good stuff! You should try it.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

[The Delegate from the Holy Republic of Demetriopolis rises]

Though I am sure that the Federal Repbulic and Demetriopolis do not see eye to eye on many issues, I find it most interesting on one point that the honorable delegate hinted at. Does this body give nations the right to exist? Does this body grant or take away the property(and therefore right to exist) of any nation?

Sure, this body is essential in many instances at solving and preventing international conflicts; however, this body is not here to take control of any nation's borders.

Due to these ideas, and those statements re-quoted by the Federal Republic, the Holy Republic of Demetriopolis must urge all nations to halt the passage of this ludicrous piece of legislation.

Thank You.

We would urge those of you currently undecided on this question to behold the scintillating rantings (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1397) of the Ceoranan delegation before casting your vote. They are a real eye-opener. As for the Federal Republic, having reviewed the proposal, the "arguments" offered in its favor, and fully considered its "ramifications" (or total lack thereof), we stand in strident opposition.

The arguments for the proposal should have no effect on your vote. Those comments were made speaking as a member of the general assembly, not as a representative of the proposal.

We regret that we ourselves don't have any know-it-all 10-year-old boys on hand to impart their wisdom to you all
Hey! I'm eleven!

It would seem that the delegate has no desire to explain their wild statements, which show their intentions behind this resolution. Anyone who votes for this proposal is following in their path. One of destruction, death, and division among us all. One that will cause increased military tension along all of our borders, just the opposite of its claims.

Personally, and no offense to the author, I believe that this is preposterous. We, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to declare war on whichever nation we please. This does not mean that we would, even if it was deemed necessary, declare a war. We simply believe that it violates our rights as a sovereign state in the international community, to be told we cannot declare war on who we please.

We ABSTAIN!

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

"Sorry, but we don't really want to start any fighting about my views. I know, why don't we defenestrate everyone who voted on the side that loses?

The arguments for the proposal should have no effect on your vote. Those comments were made speaking as a member of the general assembly, not as a representative of the proposal.


Meaning no disrespect to the representative of Ceorana, we see this as the most preposterous statement ever made in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Is he seriously suggesting we should pay no attention to the debate?

As a proposal or resolution is debated here, we pay careful attention to the arguments for and against. Good, solid arguments in favor of and opposing resolutions have caused us several times to change our vote. They may explain away an objection we had, may let us see things from a new perspective, or point out flaws we hadn't noticed.

And we would point out that the representative is listed as co-author of the resolution. It seems only logical to us that his comments should be taken as representative of those of the authorial team. Is he now disavowing co-authorship and distancing himself from the resolution?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Meaning no disrespect to the representative of Ceorana, we see this as the most preposterous statement ever made in this Assembly -- and that's going some. Is he seriously suggesting we should pay no attention to the debate?
No, that wasn't what I was suggesting, and I probably misunderstood the rep from OMGTKK. It seemed that he was suggesting that the vote was changed because of the arguments themselves, not because of information gained. In other words, it seemed he was stating that he took issue with the way I defended it, rather than the fact that my defense (which I agree wasn't very well done) pointed out problems with the resolution. (After rereading OMGTKK's post, I realize that my post was probably not relevant.)

And we would point out that the representative is listed as co-author of the resolution. It seems only logical to us that his comments should be taken as representative of those of the authorial team. Is he now disavowing co-authorship and distancing himself from the resolution?

Not really. But just because I co-authored it doesn't mean I say everything as co-author. Those statements were made as a general member of the assembly, not as co-author. I did not give much, if any, assistance in the drafting of the content, and therefore do not feel qualified officially commenting on it.

No, that wasn't what I was suggesting, and I probably misunderstood the rep from OMGTKK. It seemed that he was suggesting that the vote was changed because of the arguments themselves, not because of information gained. In other words, it seemed he was stating that he took issue with the way I defended it, rather than the fact that my defense (which I agree wasn't very well done) pointed out problems with the resolution. (After rereading OMGTKK's post, I realize that my post was probably not relevant.)



Not really. But just because I co-authored it doesn't mean I say everything as co-author. Those statements were made as a general member of the assembly, not as co-author. I did not give much, if any, assistance in the drafting of the content, and therefore do not feel qualified officially commenting on it.

We thank the representative for his response and for clarifying his position with reference to the resolution.
Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Confederacy of Gallantaria will vote against this resolution. The borders must represent the will of the people living in the concerned territories. This will might change as time goes by. That is the reason why borders should not be fixed for eternity.

I am against this proposal. If I want a military, I will have a military. If we reduce our military forces, we make ourselves weaker and in a more vulnerable position to such nations that have not been suppressed by this resolution.

A roomful of screaming girls in nighties having a sweaty pillowfight would do more for global stability than this proposal.

I'd like to see that -- and the sweatier, the better!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN.

I am against this proposal. If I want a military, I will have a military. If we reduce our military forces, we make ourselves weaker and in a more vulnerable position to such nations that have not been suppressed by this resolution.


Where does it say you can't have a military? Where does it say you can't have a STRONG military?

It doesn't. All it says is no more war over petty border disputes. Every nation still has the right to build up whatever defense they feel is necessary. Just because the intended purpose of this proposal states "to reduce military spending" doesn't mean you actually have to reduce military spending. The only demand this proposal states is turning over border disputes and claims to the UN for arbitration.

Nothing wrong with that!

Where does it say you can't have a military? Where does it say you can't have a STRONG military?

It doesn't. All it says is no more war over petty border disputes. Every nation still has the right to build up whatever defense they feel is necessary. Just because the intended purpose of this proposal states "to reduce military spending" doesn't mean you actually have to reduce military spending. The only demand this proposal states is turning over border disputes and claims to the UN for arbitration.

Nothing wrong with that!

OOC: Actually, in game effects, it does mean you reduce military spending:

Mutual Recognition of Borders

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Or did you completely miss that part?

It also doesn't prevent war over petty border disputes. It suggests third party mediation, but doesn't say you can't nuke the other guy anyways.

Are nations not entitled to the freedom to determine their own borders? It seems to me that the UN has decided what my sovereign nation should do on its borders. Unfortunately, this resolution will only cause me to increase security at my borders, so as to avoid my conflict being taken over by the obviously larger nations at the UN. This is purposefully written to undermine the sovereignty of smaller nations such as Altamaire, I vehemently oppose this expansion of power to the United Nations!

After much consideration of this statement, and pondering an appropriate response, we came to this conclusion: huh? We cannot for the life of us see how this affects smaller nations any differently from larger ones. And since this resolution does not mandate anything, it does not "cause" you to do anything.

At the title, this seems alright;however, I cannot stay in the UN if it is to continue to propose resolutions that suppress the rights of nations, and then make their own problems the power of this body to determine.

I see, so what would you have the UN do, then, if not address international problems? Bake pies, perhaps? And since, again, this proposal does not mandate anything, it does not suppress any of your rights.

Personally, and no offense to the author, I believe that this is preposterous. We, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to declare war on whichever nation we please. This does not mean that we would, even if it was deemed necessary, declare a war. We simply believe that it violates our rights as a sovereign state in the international community, to be told we cannot declare war on who we please.

Please point out to me where, exactly, in this proposal that that right is taken away from you. Hint: it isn't, since again, there is NO MANDATE.

The Confederacy of Gallantaria will vote against this resolution. The borders must represent the will of the people living in the concerned territories. This will might change as time goes by. That is the reason why borders should not be fixed for eternity.

The way we read this proposal, anytime a border is disputed, it can be negotiated. So, therefore, couldn't the disagreement just be mediated again if the borders came up for dispute again? And an inherent part of negotiation and compromise is making sure you address the "will of the people" in the best way possible that is acceptable to all parties.

I am against this proposal. If I want a military, I will have a military. If we reduce our military forces, we make ourselves weaker and in a more vulnerable position to such nations that have not been suppressed by this resolution.

Again, NO MANDATE. Where, for the love of whatever gods you worship, does it say anything about not having a military?

We despair for the educational systems of some of our fellow nations, that reading and comprehension seem to be a bit lacking. Perhaps we should offer some humanitarian aid in that regard.

"The resolution Mutual Recognition of Borders was passed 7,208 votes to 5,351, and implemented in all UN member nations."

Congratulations to Love and esterel.

We would like to thanks everyone who helped us in the drafting of this proposal and who helped it to pass, in particular to Ceorana. Thanks also to every Ambassador who took part in this debate.

Also if there are still some Ambassador in this Hall, we would like to propose them to watch a 1-minute-short-movie related to borders:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=931DoxMDQt0
(sound needed)

Despite our firm objection to this resolution, we'd like to congratulate the honorable representative of Love and esterel on its passage. The intent of the resolution is certainly commendable, and we hope it will do some good. We also hope that its presence on the books will not discourage those who might wish to draft more effective legislation on the issue.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We also congratulate Love and esterel on the passage of this resolution.

Congrats on the passing on this resolution.

Look at the above 3 posts. It's basically the same thing.

Congrats. I did abstain, but I didn't really make a difference in the vote.

I will Comply with the new proposal..

I will Comply with the new proposal..

If you're a UN member, you've got no choice really.

If you're a UN member, you've got no choice really.

That depends on what you are complying with.
"But I really don't want to believe in the Multiverse!"

That depends on what you are complying with.
"But I really don't want to believe in the Multiverse!"

Too late. It's been codified. :p

That depends on what you are complying with.
"But I really don't want to believe in the Multiverse!"

Too late. It's been codified. :p

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/borg.jpg

While we voted against this, and will probably work on a repeal of this resolution we congratualte LAE on their temporary victory.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Who is the chair of the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders and how would one get a hold of such a committee?

Who is the chair of the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders and how would one get a hold of such a committee?

You don't.
nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative