NationStates Jolt Archive

Can somebody put together a decent proposal with in-character rationale for prohibiting the formation of a UN Army? I'm fully aware of the OOC rules prohibiting it, but other resolutions (see Rights and Duties of UN States) have codified OOC rules into IC guidelines.

It would be nice to visit the UN proposal list and not have to clean out 5-10 of these a week. Maybe, just maybe, if there was a statute on the books, people might not propose it quite so often.

Thankee kindly.

Can somebody put together a decent proposal with in-character rationale for prohibiting the formation of a UN Army? I'm fully aware of the OOC rules prohibiting it, but other resolutions (see Rights and Duties of UN States) have codified OOC rules into IC guidelines.

It would be nice to visit the UN proposal list and not have to clean out 5-10 of these a week. Maybe, just maybe, if there was a statute on the books, people might not propose it quite so often.

Thankee kindly.

I'll take it to DEFCON and see what we can come up with. We should have something put together as a start in fairly short order. It will take a bit of work to be good, but we'll get started on it.

I'll start off by saying it's definitely only "just maybe". There are still duplicating/contradicting proposals submitted all the time: for example, the Marriage Protection Act was submitted to stop the rash of marriage proposals, but still some appear.

The other point is that writing it might be hard, in that generally the rules have been held to ban proposals of the form "The UN shall not..." or "Prohibits the UN from...", and I can't see how to write in the form "Nations have the right..."; also, writing to category might be tricky.

Nonetheless, a couple of starting efforts:

UN Army Ban
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

Recognising its important role in the preservation of international stability,

Equally aware of the diversity of its membership,

Believing that the creation and use of a UN military force would present a serious risk of abuse,

Acknowledging that such an instrument could never be wielded impartially and would only serve to divide the global community,

Also concerned by the illegitimate draining of member nations' funds:

1. Declares that the United Nations shall never raise, keep or use any kind of armed force or police force, nor develop military installations or weaponry, nor declare itself or its membership to be at a state of war, nor grants its agents the right to engage in police or military actions;

2. Affirms that this shall not affect the right of collective self-defence of its members, nor of the UN to authorise missions such as humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping operations or disaster relief.

Alternatively:

UN Army Ban
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

Reaffirming Article 4 of Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States", which states that all member nations enjoy the right to individual or collective self-defence,

Considering the importance of permitting sovereign nations to defend their citizens from aggressive attack,

Recognising that such a right could never be realized if a UN army were created,

Believing such a force would automatically abrogate the rights of member nations,

Further aware of how costly and unworkably any such force would be, and that its deployment would only prove divisive and contrary to the interests of preserving international stability:

1. Declares that the United Nations shall never raise, keep or use any kind of armed force or police force, nor develop military installations or weaponry, nor declare itself or its membership to be at a state of war, nor grants its agents the right to engage in police or military actions;

2. Affirms its members right to self-defence;

3. Encourages its members to make preparations for such defence, whether through adequately funding their military, or through the negotiation of non-aggression pacts, or otherwise;

4. Encourages its members to assist states under aggressive attack in their defence, provided such assistance is requested, is aimed solely at the defence of a sovereign nation, and is not in violation of international law.

Another way would be to grandfather it in to a resolution such as UN War Convention, the Interpol one, or something like that, but that would have less impact in terms of warning people off.

I'd look at Political Stability, and perhaps phrase it as "In the event of requests for military intervention, UN member nations must ..." rather than "The UN must not ..."

Gruen, did you have those stashed away somewhere? If you just popped out with those off the top of your head, then I am in awe. They'd need a little bit of work, but either one is better than I could come up with on the fly.

I'd look at Political Stability, and perhaps phrase it as "In the event of requests for military intervention, UN member nations must ..." rather than "The UN must not ..."
Alright, though just as a brief, headache-inducing defence...the rule against proposals banning UN action is to stop proposals from grinding the game to a halt. It's to stop people banning UN legislation in an area, because the UN has the authority to legislate in any area. But it has never had the authority to make an army anyway; and this proposal wouldn't ban UN action: because the UN couldn't take that action anyway!

Nonetheless, that's utterly MetaGaming/wank, so I will try to rephrase it. Or maybe Texan hotrodders's one would be better.

Here's my draft, revised after some good discussion with other experienced legislators:

UN Army Ban

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

The NationStates United Nations,

SEEKING to foster an environment of constructive diplomacy rather than destructive acts of war,

BELIEVING that this body should lead by example in fostering such an environment,

RECOGNIZING the massive logistical and political problems engendered by an excessively large armed force that could be created under the auspices of this body,

RECOMMENDS that all nations work to foster an environment of constructive diplomacy in international affairs;

DECLARES that member nations and public or private bodies within member nations shall exclusively hold the right to form and deploy military forces, except where member nations have disallowed the formation and/or deployment of military forces by said bodies within their nation.

Here's what I've thrown together:

UN Military Convention
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant?

The United Nations

UNDERSTANDING the need to create an environment of international peace and security

PREFERRING to seek diplomatic methodology to achieve such peace and security over that of military force

UNWILLING, as a diplomatic organization, to be an instrument of violence, or viewed as such

RESOLVES that UN member nations shall not form a national or international military force under the flag of the UN

REAFFIRMS the right of nations to collective self-defense as granted by prior legislation

I'd look at Political Stability, and perhaps phrase it as "In the event of requests for military intervention, UN member nations must ..." rather than "The UN must not ..."

How would prohibiting a UN army correspond with a decrease in political freedoms in member states?

How would prohibiting a UN army correspond with a decrease in political freedoms in member states?

I didn't say I'd recommend it, I suggested you look at it. How it works is up to the author.

How would prohibiting a UN army correspond with a decrease in political freedoms in member states?

By keeping them or their citizens from forming or deploying a UN Army. Creating and/or deploying a military force to enforce political decisions seems to me to be a political freedom, and a rather important one in most nations.

How about as an International Security measure? Approach from the other direction. Instead of banning a UN Army, mandate that nations are responsible for their own defense, either from their own armies or from individually worked out bilateral agreements?

Essentially a de facto ban, as opposed to an active one.

DEFCON is already well underway with work on this (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=202). Thanks to the representative from Kivisto for bringing it to our attention.

Cordially,
Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Defense Minister
Chairman, UN DEFCON (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?)

How about as an International Security measure? Approach from the other direction. Instead of banning a UN Army, mandate that nations are responsible for their own defense, either from their own armies or from individually worked out bilateral agreements?

Essentially a de facto ban, as opposed to an active one.

I considered that, but figured it'd look too pro-military to the fluffies. UNSA wasn't particularly pro-military, and it still got a lot of anti-military nonsense slung at it (and the margin of victory wasn't all that great).

Some of the flamegrams in my inbox during that time were pretty interesting in their approach to the "peace" that they so desired.

How about as an International Security measure? Approach from the other direction. Instead of banning a UN Army, mandate that nations are responsible for their own defense, either from their own armies or from individually worked out bilateral agreements?

Essentially a de facto ban, as opposed to an active one.

I think what I threw together pretty well works for a solid ban. As the UN, being an organization, has no populace of its own, any UN military force would be created from and by member nations. These member nations would not be allowed to create any military force under the UN flag, so there can be no UN army at all.

What you suggest would work, in legal effect, but what we need is something that will easily read as a ban on a UN army. If we tell them that they are solely resonsible for their own military affairs, there will be those who think that the responsible action would be to create a UN sponsored army. They'd be wrong, but that's beside the point. If we tell them that they can't do something, they're much more likely to get the idea.

Let me take a whack:



UN Army Ban/or something
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

AFFIRMING the devotion of the United Nations to matters of international peace and stability,

DESIRING to maintain the status of the United Nations as a peaceful body,

ASSERTING the right of nations to engage in warfare or collective action for defensive or offensive purposes,

DECLARING that the United Nations shall not form any military organ, or engage in conflict against member or non-member nations.


Blech. Not the best.

I think what I threw together pretty well works for a solid ban. As the UN, being an organization, has no populace of its own, any UN military force would be created from and by member nations. These member nations would not be allowed to create any military force under the UN flag, so there can be no UN army at all.

OOC: That would abolish our right to raise a military of our own, especially with how stupid my people are.

OOC: That would abolish our right to raise a military of our own, especially with how stupid my people are.

OOC: Your flag is the flag of Mindless UN Drones, not of the UN. Even if you use the same banner to represent your nation as the UN does to represent itself. The meaning and intent are clear by context. If you wish to be pedantic about it, you'll be treated the same as the other pedants. You don't want that. Trust me. We don't treat them well.

Actually, and grudgingly, I'll admit he has a point. Anything to do with flags comes close to Games Mechanics; maybe change it to "name" or something?

Actually, and grudgingly, I'll admit he has a point. Anything to do with flags comes close to Games Mechanics; maybe change it to "name" or something?

What about, "under the banner of the UN"?

What about, "under the banner of the UN"?

OOC: Yeah, that's better.

Auspices of the UN?

Auspices of the UN?

I do like that better.

In all honestly, I prefer the second draft submitted by Gruen because it seems to be the easiest for most people to read (the point is to stop lesser literates from submitting UN army proposals, right?). One thing that I noticed needing fixed is: Further aware of how costly and unworkably any such force would be....I believe it would be unworkable, simply because it doesn't make sense as it is. Also: ...provided such assistance is requested (and) is aimed solely at the defence of a sovereign nation and is not in violation of international law.Though more of a knit-picky comment, the above revision is how I believe things go in proper English. Note that I have omitted the two commas.

I also question the strength of the proposal, as it would seem to be a fairly strict ban against the UN itself--rather than member nations.

It also seems to me that Kivisto's proposal can fit quite well at the beginning of Gruen's without seriously affecting either proposal. I don't really have anything seriously agaisnt either Texas' or Kivisto's. It's simply a matter of preference. I can read gruen's draft and very easily pick out that it means "No UN Army, stupids." I can't do the same as easily with the other two.

So I think I've hit a snag.

I was looking at a couple of past resolutions on an unrelated matter when I spotted this

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

I might be reading it incorrectly, but that strikes me as a right for the UN to authorize an army under UN auspices. HI continues on to give UN tight control over said army's actions and tactics. It makes it more difficult to prohibit a UN army when the UN can already offer its authorization to military actions.

I think it can be gotten around, but it would be easier if I could get some clarification about that clause from HI.

Off the cuff, I'd say that's more the UN telling people they can go to war, as opposed to passing out blue hats. Not all that familiar with HI, though.

I think it authorizes the UN Gift Shop to change the signs on the souvenir Tea Cozies to Helmet Cozies, at least for all members of 'multilateral forces with UN authorisation'.

http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/graphics/dpm/dpphc4na500a.jpg

The key here is of course "multilateral". HI asks the UN to verify there is a problem. Having agreed there is a problem, the do-gooder nations who have volunteered to interceed are given a pat on the back, a hot cup of tea, and permission to "go get 'em, boys". And of course, opportunity to buy helmet cozies.

To be a complete wanker, it also never actually creates the "right of humanitarian intervention. It simply "CALLS FOR" its creation. :p

I wasn't really too familiar with that resolution (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Humanitarian_Intervention) myself, having only read through it once, I believe, when I first joined the UN and was far less experienced. Having read through it more thoroughly again, and with more UN experience under my belt, I can't see how it would possibly have passed muster under the current level of scrutiny to which proposals are currently subjected.

Having read through it more thoroughly again, and with more UN experience under my belt, I can't see how it would possibly have passed muster under the current level of scrutiny to which proposals are currently subjected.


I don't think it would have passed the HoC test, at any rate.

Thanks for the quick response to the legality issue. We're still doing some further drafting over at DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php), and we'll probably have something to put forward after the holidays. I wouldn't want to try to get anything to quorum between now and the new year.

I don't think it would have passed the HoC test, at any rate.

Thanks for the quick response to the legality issue. We're still doing some further drafting over at DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php), and we'll probably have something to put forward after the holidays. I wouldn't want to try to get anything to quorum between now and the new year.

OOC: Probably a good call. Sounds like DEFCON's gonna be quite busy come January. :D

Determined to maintain the neutrality of the United Nations over international affairs, and to protect the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states;

This Assembly hereby resolves:

1. That member states shall neither raise nor contribute funds or forces toward the creation of any army or police force under the banner or command of the NationStates United Nations;

2. That member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force.Short, simple and to the point.

Suggestions?

I like that. Short, sweet, and to the point.

It's brilliant. I like how you worked the term "territorial sovereignty" in there. This will have my full support.

Short, simple and to the point.

Suggestions?

Have you settled on category and strength?

Seeing as how this is a measure to protect member nations' territorial sovereignty, International Security, Mild. Now all I need's a title strong enough to scare off the aspiring "We needz an UN ARMY!!1111one" legislators, and soft enough to assure the fluffies that this is not an attempt to neuter their beloved UN. Hmm.