NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure which catagory this could fall under yet but I would like to try this out.

APPENDIX: Honorable U.N. Members with many nation members and non member alike taking on smaller states as a protected state, this resolution is brought before the general assembly

Section I: Protected States

This Resolution Defines a Protected state as: An underdeveloped nation seeking and receiving protection by a stronger state (a protector) diplomatically, economically and/or military from third-party states. Or otherwise protection from a fallen government and potential hostile indigenous forces, so defined by the agreement of the protected and protector.

Section II: Protector State
This resolution defines a protector state as: A nation adopting or annexing a smaller state either fully or semi-autonomous, less developed state for the purpose of protecting it from third-parties, diplomatically or military with or without an exchange in good and/or services.

Section III: Responsibilities and Duties of a Protector State
A protector state shall agree and abide with the cultural customs of the protected as agreed by the diplomatic leaders. A protector state shall not permanently annex a protected state, unless willfully agreed upon by leaders of both under sound stable conditions.
A protector state shall so aid the governing officials of a protected state in forming a stable government to the will of the protected state
A protector shall keep a nation safe from unwanted third-party influence or force to the best of their extent.
A protector shall aid in all natural disasters that afflict the protected
A protector shall not accept nor demand payment of any kind (unless agreed upon by leaders) from the protected
A protector shall not form a protected into a puppet state for their own will

Section IV: Responsibilities and Duties of a Protected State
A protected state shall not leech off the generosity of a the protector, and a protector can drop the state if this should happen
A protected shall in vice-versa respect the culture and customs of the protector as agreed
A protected state shall rely on their own local law-enforcement (with the exception of immediate post war conflict) to enforce peace among the civilians
A protected state shall show mutual gratitude for the aid

Section V: Responsibilities and duties of Third-Party Nations
A Third Party nation shall not interfere with the protection of any protected state for any reason unless so requested by the Protector.
A third party shall respect the boundaries set by a protector nation, or otherwise adhere to a default boundary of 50 miles (80 KM) on sea and any neighboring national border of land unless authorized to commence activity
No Third party nation may annex or attack a protected state in war or peace time for any reason

APPENDIX II:
In order to ensure that the regulations of the above are held it’s proposed that a council be formed to oversee the process of a Protectorate Pact. THUS CALLS FOR: The start of the U.N. High Commissioner on Protectorate States (UNHCPS) shall be henceforth established to oversee all member nations in the protector/protected catagory.

There has certainly been a lot of good effort put into this draft. We don't believe we'd be able to support such a proposal, though. To us, everything before Section V falls into the category of things that would be worked out bilaterally between the two nations involved during the negotiation of the protectorate agreement. We don't see why an NSUN resolution would be needed to make it happen.

Also, the last sentence of Section 5 we see as a real problem. Given that provision, a protected state could act as an aggressor, and the aggrieved nation would be forbidden to counterattack.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You've obviously put work and effort into this, but I'm not convinced that UN legislation is needed on this issue.


A protected state shall show mutual gratitude for the aid


I don't think you mean "mutual'. And if you do, then the grammar is wrong.

Also (and more importantly) my government shares the concerns voiced by the honourable representative of Ausserland regarding clause 3 of section V.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

"Well unfortunatley not all the things are worked out in a bilateral agreement. The offical defenition says it is either forecfully or willfully, and we don't belive it should be by force and explotation. I mean naturally when these countries are seeking aid and or protection they really can't protest any will of the higher state because of military might. So unless proper legislation is intorduced it's a lazzier-fair of events that can go either way. Also we have a deep concerne for prying eyed-greedy nations wanting to take these lands for their own benefit or otherwise attacking out of sure spite. But I understand your concernes with Section V: Clause III and will ammend it as I contiune drafting it."

Ellelt will be voting against this. The Politburo in Session today at New Stalingrad in the Krimlin has decided that this proposal contains too much legalese and is therefore undecipherable.

And Comrade Brunzov assures me that it will prevent us from inva--I mean liberating other countries. So we will be voting against this thank you.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

"This certinally isn't about whether or not you can march into nations and liberate them, this about colonies, states, etc. classified as an offical protectorate."

The reason you can't fit this to a category is that there is no broad internation principle at stake here. This is a treaty matter between two or a small number of nations. It has no effect whatsoever on the rest of the international community.

In its current form, I'd probably rule it as "not worthy of the UN's attention", regardless of which category you attempted to shoehorn it into.

"Well unfortunatley not all the things are worked out in a bilateral agreement. The offical defenition says it is either forecfully or willfully, and we don't belive it should be by force and explotation. I mean naturally when these countries are seeking aid and or protection they really can't protest any will of the higher state because of military might. So unless proper legislation is intorduced it's a lazzier-fair of events that can go either way. Also we have a deep concerne for prying eyed-greedy nations wanting to take these lands for their own benefit or otherwise attacking out of sure spite. But I understand your concernes with Section V: Clause III and will ammend it as I contiune drafting it."

What "official definition"? The definitions in your proposal certainly don't say that. And the idea that a state seeking the protection of a more powerful nation cannot have any effect on the arrangement is simply not credible. In many cases, there are advantages on both sides, and many things can be negotiated. It seems to us that you've confused the establishment of a protectorate with forcible annexation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It all depends upon the nation giving to the protection. What I am looking for is to protect smaller states wanting protection against bigger states wanting land, it happens more often than you think. Natrually no one wants to do forceful annexations as they will be branded imperalisists, but if they use a protected This proposal states what should be defined as such, not what is, putting what is simply irrelevant to this resolution and creates a praodox. If it's a crime to look out for the intrest of smaller states than I stand guilty as charged.