NationStates Jolt Archive

Prohibition of UN Military
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: 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. 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. Member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force.Submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=prohibition)

Discuss.

I wonder how the mods feel about proposals that affirm the established rules for proposals...well, at least it's a welcome relief from all the ones that create a UN army.

I think we'll be okay with it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510977).

I like it, and I think it covers the broad spectrum of attempts to create a UN army adequately.

I also note I think it's a good idea, inasmuch as in the [highly unlikely] event of the UN army rule being scrapped, this proposal would become hugely important. A UN military is a really bad idea regardless of any question of proposal rules.

While I am intrigued by the idea of a UN military under Yeldan command, I suppose the responsible course of action would be to approve this. And I have done so.

Full support.

We support this also. The only army we want within our borders is our own. And if armed force is needed to resolve an international dispute, we are certain that there will be plenty of nations willing to contribute soldiers towards that solution....that's what wars are for.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Approved.

LAE support this proposal.
Just a question by curiosity, as I may not fully understand it, along with the related rule:
Are all the equivalent of RL "UN peacekeeping missions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all_UN_peacekeeping_missions
banned by this related rule (and again by this proposal) or not?

On a sidenote:
International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
...
"International Security" increases government spending on the police and military

I would like to post this not as a critic of this proposal for its category but to invite everyone to contemplate the absurdity of our categories.

I fully recognize that these categories could have been great at the begining of the NSUN (as topic tips and reminder of side effects of every resolution) but I hope that I'm not the only one thinking that if we maintain these categories it's best to be flexible with them for proposals in general, as category flexibility seems to apply to this proposal in particular.

Ellelt Naturally supports this necessary proposal.

VK

Ellelt Naturally supports this necessary proposal.

VK

Jey Unnaturally supports this unnecessary proposal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative
Ambassador to the General Assembly of the United Nations

Edit [/sarcasm]

Jey Unnaturally supports this unnecessary proposal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative
Ambassador to the General Assembly of the United Nations

Perhaps the Jevian UN Representative needs to check the illegal/silly proposals thread more often. In our sort time we have noticed a total of 17 proposals that were submitted that aim at creating a UN military/police force of some form or an other and one that even claimed at creating a international (but really national--or whatever CP was saying...when he opens his mouth my ears stop working for some reason) "peace corps" from 20% of all the UN nations' military personnel.

Add to that the fact that Fris himself requested that this issue be addressed in a resolution. It is our opinion that this resolution is needed to stem the tide of illegal proposals aiming to create a UN army/police force.

As far as peacekeeping operations...Individual volunteer nations and/or regions can adequately handle that.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

snip

*sigh*

Perhaps the Jevian UN Representative needs to check the illegal/silly proposals thread more often. In our sort time we have noticed a total of 17 proposals that were submitted that aim at creating a UN military/police force of some form or an other and one that even claimed at creating a international (but really national--or whatever CP was saying...when he opens his mouth my ears stop working for some reason) "peace corps" from 20% of all the UN nations' military personnel.

Add to that the fact that Fris himself requested that this issue be addressed in a resolution. It is our opinion that this resolution is needed to stem the tide of illegal proposals aiming to create a UN army/police force.

As far as peacekeeping operations...Individual volunteer nations and/or regions can adequately handle that.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Mr. Khernynko, I was tempted to say something while listening to your oration in the midst of the repeal debate... but I refrained.

But now, I have to say, will you please just shut the hell up?

Most courteously,
Prince Tang of Allech-Atreus

OOC: Did you miss the sarcasm?

A United Nations Military? We are here to create policy not enforce it. The only way I would accept this is if all UN states give up their own military.

Just to say it nice and loud:

This proposal outlaws any United Nations army.

Considering what the GA is like, I shudder to think about what a UN army would be like! I support this prohibition.

I am against this proposition.

First: creating an UN-army is forbidden already by the rules. This resolution is unecessary and make unecessary bureaucracy

Second: This resolution do prevent sanctions against rogue states breaking the rules. These sanctions may be necessary one day. We should not forbid this possibility

Third: it is the responsability of the moderators to watch what is happening here. This responsability must be taken by the moderators and not through the UN. It is not possible that the moderators are not even able to watch what is happening in the UN proposition menu.

:headbang:

The mods REQUESTED this proposal.

And about damn time, too.

~ K. Andrew Tsudrats
Ambassador to the General Assembly of the United Nations, representing the Nation of the Glorious Freestate of the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash of the Libertarian Concordance of the Commonwealth of Czardas

Good job with the wording of this proposal.

My government supports this.

Okay, addendum to my previous announcement:

This proposal outlaws any UN military. The NS Moderators requested this proposal.

Yes, and? What is happening now? This is absolutely no argument in favor of this useless resolution...

Yes, and? What is happening now? This is absolutely no argument in favor of this useless resolution...

Except that the NationStates Moderators explicitly asked (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510977) that this proposal be submitted?

Yes, and? What is happening now? This is absolutely no argument in favor of this useless resolution...Save, maybe, the fact that this -- unlike all the proposals professing to create a UN military -- is legal, it reaffirms UN rules, it helps enforce UN rules, it may stop some aspiring legislators from submitting illegal proposals, and, of course, the fact that appointing the UN world referee and deploying its forces to invade sovereign nations for the purpose of enforcing subjective rulings of international bureaucrats through force of arms would be, like, a totally sucky idea?

Would you like it if a UN commission ruled against you and UN forces (for some reason) were deployed to your nation to force you to comply? No, I didn't think so.

Third: it is the responsability of the moderators to watch what is happening here. This responsability must be taken by the moderators and not through the UN. It is not possible that the moderators are not even able to watch what is happening in the UN proposition menu.
Thank you for that fine explanation of my life and job. Perhaps you can tell me how to be successful with hot babes as well.

This proposal is legal, desirable (from the mods' perspective of reducing the constant stream of illegal UN Army proposals), desireable from the perspective of reducing unnecessary warning on newbie UN nations, and desireable from the perspective of having IC legislation to back up the OOC rules (as did Rights and Duties of UN States). It's also well-written, concise, and strongly supported by both mods and UN regulars.

Now, about your argument that it is useless ...

James_xenoland gives its full support to this.

I look forward to voting and arguing for this fine work from the Kennyite delegation.

"Would you like it if a UN commission ruled against you and UN forces (for some reason) were deployed to your nation to force you to comply? No, I didn't think so."

Well, taking your "argument": if I constantly would break the most basic human rights in my nation, that should be exactly what ought to happen.

Human rights enforcement is not subjective. These are clear and well-known rights.

As long as there is no "war-modus" in this game, a resolution forbidding an UN-attack is purely useless.

"Thank you for that fine explanation of my life and job."

I am trying not to sound aggressive, but seems that I missed the tone... I apologize for that.

Well, it seems to me you just want to get rid off some responsability and work... I understand you cannot be everywhere, but as a moderator it is still your responsability to make sure the players respect the rules. You may ask for help from all the supporters of this resolution, but that does not change anything neither to the responsability nor to the necessary support for new players...

I never argued that the proposition were illegal. It is of course legal. But it does nothing except underlining: we want to respect the rules. I never in the entire history saw an army being formed without funding, which is already forbidden. An attack between states, even under UN-Flag, is not possible. Great, words for nothing.

OOC: If I understand correctly, the main problem is that many newbies are submitting UN Army proposals, which Fris & Co. have to shoot down. Their hope is that this proposal will reduce the number of those illegal proposals. Frankly, I'm sceptical, since the n00bs won't read the current resolutions any better than they read FAQs and stickys, but it might help some. Also, it gives an IC reason why UN armies aren't allowed, rather than it being an edict from above, which I prefer.

As long as there is now "war-modus" in this game, a resolution forbidding an UN-attack is purely useless.If we're going to take this course, then every UN Resolution is useless.


Well, it seems to me you just want to get rid off some responsability and work... I understand you cannot be everywhere, but as a moderator it is still your responsability to make sure the players respect the rules.Yeah... keep digging there, sparky.

Well, it seems to me you just want to get rid off some responsability and work... I understand you cannot be everywhere, but as a moderator it is still your responsability to make sure the players respect the rules. You may ask for help from all the supporters of this resolution, but that does not change anything neither to the responsability nor to the necessary support for new players...


OOC: I know you're quite new here, and I'd suggest maybe you should make sure you understand how things work before slinging criticism around. This proposal won't allow the moderators to slough off any responsibility. They will still have the complete responsibility for deciding if submitted proposals are legal or not. Will it let them avoid some work? I hope so. That's one of two aims of the proposal.

The proposal will hopefully save the moderators some work in that it will mean fewer illegal proposals will be submitted that they have to delete. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book, since the moderators are volunteers, not paid employees, and anything that cuts down their workload is fine. But now let's look at the other side....

The proposal will -- it's hoped -- also save frustration and useless work for members. If a member is going to write a proposal establishing a UN military/paramilitary forces and this proposal alerts him that such a thing is illegal, he can avoid going to the trouble of writing the proposal just to be frustrated by having it deleted from the list.

Whether this proposal will actually accomplish those goals is a good question. I have my doubts. But its purpose is a worthwhile one for both moderators and members.

"Would you like it if a UN commission ruled against you and UN forces (for some reason) were deployed to your nation to force you to comply? No, I didn't think so."

Well, taking your "argument": if I constantly would break the most basic human rights in my nation, that should be exactly what ought to happen.

Human rights enforcement is not subjective. These are clear and well-known rights.

Care to define those "human rights"? Myself, I would be opposed to the UN having an army and attacking any nation what-so-ever. That would create a slippery slope ending in the destruction of all rights that individual nations and their citizens hold dear. As for those who preach about human rights...I have noticed they never once actually define what they mean by human rights.

Would that be the right to own a capitalist business and exploit other people? Human rights like all other broad buzzword terms is subject to wide interpretation.


*snip preachy, n00bish nonsense* I never argued that the proposition were illegal. It is of course legal. But it does nothing except underlining: we want to respect the rules. I never in the entire history saw an army being formed without funding, which is already forbidden. An attack between states, even under UN-Flag, is not possible. Great, words for nothing.

Strange, the Gnomes seem perfectly happy to work without receiving pay. There is a need to have IC legislation to back up the OOC rules to prevent various n00bs from writing proposals calling for a UN military (funded or not funded).

I'm Sure that Fris and Company have better things to do with their mod time than to delete 15 proposals and write 15 warnings to people who should have spent the 2 minutes to read the rules. This proposal would got a long way to preventing them from having to perform such monotonous functions, when they could say be doing actual moderating.

I could be wrong I guess....maybe Moderator is UNish for babysitter--although I doubt that it is.

VK

Unequivocal support from Dashanzi.

Benedictions,

Well, taking your "argument": if I constantly would break the most basic human rights in my nation, that should be exactly what ought to happen.

Human rights enforcement is not subjective. These are clear and well-known rights.Only the Sith deal in absolutes. Didn't they teach you that in Jedi school?

If the NSUN's "enforcement" of human-rights edicts is anything on the order of the RL UN's treatment of the United States and Israel (or, for that matter, the way NSUN member states falsely regard (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1350) the Federal Republic), then no, I would not give it authority over any military/police force to "enforce" its "impartial" rulings. Nor would I have the UN referee international conflicts through force of arms. For God's sake, we are legislators, not warlords.

Not quite sure I'm catching how you can in one breath argue a UN police force is legal and necessary, and in the next say "of course it's illegal, but it's the mods job to enforce it blah blah blah." You must have been asleep when they were teaching you consistency in Jedi school as well. Can't say I'm surprised.

As long as there is now [sic] "war-modus" in this game, a resolution forbidding an UN-attack is purely useless.Nope, the game contains no war option. But it is roleplayed, as are NSUN resolutions. So what's your point?

Thank you for that fine explanation of my life and job. Perhaps you can tell me how to be successful with hot babes as well.Oven mitts. They work every time. ;)

Chalk one more endorsement up for the proposal.

"Not quite sure I'm catching how you can in one breath argue a UN police force is legal and necessary, and in the next say "of course it's illegal, but it's the mods job to enforce it blah blah blah." "

Sorry, but are you able to read?

I will not answer to your statement against Israel, that would take too long and is too complicated to explain. It is not the subject here.

I said:

1st: They might be situations, when a UN-Intervention would be the right answer for nations violating human rights.

With other words: It is not necessary now, but it might be sometime.

2nd: It is still the job of the mods to watch that the rules are respected, despite of any resolution the UN could take.

3rd: On top of that, this resolution is useless, I agree with the statement of Sirat on that point.

"You must have been asleep when they were teaching you consistency in Jedi school as well. Can't say I'm surprised."

Is this supposed to be funny?

2nd: It is still the job of the mods to watch that the rules are respected, despite of any resolution the UN could take.Your continued harping on what my duties involve continues to puzzle me. I fail to see the relevance here, and I really fail to see why you keep thinking it somehow counts against the Proposal at hand.

*snip preachy n00bish nonsense* I said:

1st: They might be situations, when a UN-Intervention would be the right answer for nations violating human rights.

There is rarely justification for UN interference (which is what it is not intervention) in the internal processes of the Sovereign nations. If the neighbors of the nation that has these "human rights violations" have a problem with it...there is always an option...war.

I and many others here would not the UN to come in and dictate to us what we can and can not do, establish or topple our government etc. To allow the UN to have weapons would be to establish a slippery slope. Not all the UN members can agree on everything so what will happen then? The UN will cease to be a diplomatic and deliberative body and turn into a tyranny of the Majority--not something that I and other UN members would look forward to.

With other words: It is not necessary now, but it might be sometime.

It is not necessary now, nor will it ever become necessary. If peace-keeping actions are necessary...then individual nations or regions can lead them. The UN needs to stay out on this one. I don't even want to get into the havoc allowing the UN to have an army/military/police force would cause with game-play.

*snip 2nd:...

That issue has already been answered by MG Hack. I don't feel the need to repeat him.

3rd: On top of that, this resolution is useless, I agree with the statement of Sirat on that point.

The same can be said for most other resolutions...indeed this entire game. Incidently...If this proposal is so "useless" why do you oppose it so? Indeed after reading the proposal...I must say it does indeed do something. It prohibits the UN from forming an army. True OOC rules already cover that...but what harm can come from an IC resolution to back up those rules?

From my vantage point...none...indeed it may even do much good.


"You must have been asleep when they were teaching you consistency in Jedi school as well. Can't say I'm surprised."

Is this supposed to be funny?

Actually yes it was supposed to be be funny. It isn't Kenny's fault if you missed the fact that you are making a laughingstock of yourself by blubbering out of both sides of your mouth. Usually it is a good idea to pick one side of the mouth to speak from and stick with it.

Vladimir "The UN has no business policing anybody" Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.
Delegate for the Allied Communist States.

I didn't say the proposal was useless. I said that I doubted that it would save the mods any work because the n00bs who don't read stickies also won't read the list of UN resolutions.

I'm still in favor of it because it moves an OOC rule into IC.

Gallantaria are you even reading the law? It was PROHIBITION OF A UN MILITARY which means there can be no UN military. Alot of us have been looking for someoen to finally make one of these to stop the make a UN amry proposals. If you can't under stand this you need to go pick up a dictonary and look up the meaning of the word Prohibition. Why do you make me want to hurt you.


Ps. i support this

[QUOTE=Ellelt;12144631Actually yes it was supposed to be be funny. It isn't Kenny's fault if you missed the fact that you are making a laughingstock of yourself by blubbering out of both sides of your mouth. Usually it is a good idea to pick one side of the mouth to speak from and stick with it.
[QUOTE]

It is kenny who makes no effort reading, I cannot do anything about it. But I can make an effort writing with even simpler sentences, although I doubt it might help. I never saw such a low level in a forum for ages...

1st: I wrote that UN Missions are forbidden. They are forbidden by the rules AND by the fact that no war modus exists.

2nd: They MIGHT be necessary some time, so then the rules could be changed, the game could get a new function. I wrote COULD, not SHOULD.

If you follow the idea, you would see that stating a resolution forbidding what is already forbidden not only has no effect, but prevents the game getting some particular functions.

The only argument for this resolution given to me is that new players could write propositions demanding a UN-led-army to do something. I do not see how the UN-army-ban resolution could neither stop this nor be of any help to prevent such propositions to be proposed. The ones who did not read the rules did certainly not read the nearly 200 resolutions either.

So someone (the moderators?) has in both cases to tell the new players that they are not allowed to ask for an UN-led-army. The reason why it is not possible makes no difference.

I do not want to repeat myself more times. If you do not agree - that is fine. I have achieved my goal if this resolution is not unanimously taken. But if you still have questions or do not understand some point, it will be a pleasure for me to precise my statement.

Congrats, you have a quorum.

Can I have a new thread for this so I can make a poll? This thread is mostly just "I approved" spam anyway.

No offense to those who posted that.

Sure. Just make one.

I said:

1st: They might be situations, when a UN-Intervention would be the right answer for nations violating human rights.

With other words: It is not necessary now, but it might be sometime.

2nd: It is still the job of the mods to watch that the rules are respected, despite of any resolution the UN could take.

3rd: On top of that, this resolution is useless, I agree with the statement of Sirat on that point.

To rephrase this
[1]The UN should have the power to invade people
[2]Metagaming laziness
[3]Metagaming silliness


Gotcha. On the first point, you're insane. On the next two, perhaps you'd like to try roleplaying for a change. Some of us refer to it as RP'ing. It is a simple matter of ignoring the programming rules, and the exitence of the moderators, and playing the role of an ambassador to the UN who has to make these sorts of decisions. Would your UN ambassador, as a representative of your nation, like to see the UN have the capacity to instigate offensive military actions? Why, or why not? Pretend the Mods aren't there to eliminate the illegalities from the proposal list. Pretend that there are no such rules regarding a UN military/police force. Join us in an RP session. You never know, you might just like it. Hell, you might even be good at it. You won't know uless you try.

It is kenny who makes no effort reading, I cannot do anything about it. But I can make an effort writing with even simpler sentences, although I doubt it might help. I never saw such a low level in a forum for ages...

Flaming your fellows is not a great way to try to take any moral high ground.

1st: I wrote that UN Missions are forbidden. They are forbidden by the rules AND by the fact that no war modus exists.

War does exist. Through RP. UN Missions are not forbidden. UN military/police forces are. There are already resolutions on the books that deal specifically with granting the UN the power to instigate humanitarian intervention efforts. The one that comes to mind is called, oddly enough, "Humanitarian Intervention".

2nd: They MIGHT be necessary some time, so then the rules could be changed, the game could get a new function. I wrote COULD, not SHOULD.

It could, but it won't. It's an irrelevant and silly point to beat on about. Aside from that, why should the UN have the power to instigate offensive military actions utilizing a military controlled by the UN?

If you follow the idea, you would see that stating a resolution forbidding what is already forbidden not only has no effect, but prevents the game getting some particular functions.

Once again, it's called roleplaying. The OOC rules have little bearing on how people RP. Creating the rule within the IC setting makes it more necessary for people to abide by them. A single resolution will not prevent people from RP'ing war, in any case. There are about 70,000 nations, who are not held to UN strictures, who will do whatever they want anyways. All this will do is prevent the UN as an organization from forming an army. It has no effect on member nations, who can still do whatever they want, except form a UN military.

The only argument for this resolution given to me is that new players could write propositions demanding a UN-led-army to do something. I do not see how the UN-army-ban resolution could neither stop this nor be of any help to prevent such propositions to be proposed. The ones who did not read the rules did certainly not read the nearly 200 resolutions either.

That is simply the rationale for the original inception of this resolution. There are many IC reasons for actually going forward with something like this, not the least of which would be that the UN should not have the capacity to invade individual nations. The UN is a diplomatic legislative body, not a military warlord.

So someone (the moderators?) has in both cases to tell the new players that they are not allowed to ask for an UN-led-army. The reason why it is not possible makes no difference.

You have very little faith in newer players. A great many of them will take the time to see if there is already legislation on the books that covers the area that they wish to draft law about.

I do not want to repeat myself more times.

And yet we know that you will.

If you do not agree - that is fine.

Good thing, because we don't, and nothing you can say will change that.

I have achieved my goal if this resolution is not unanimously taken.

Then you have achieved nothing of consequence. Nothing ever passes unanimously, and it makes no difference if it does or not. 50%+1 is all it takes to get a resolution passed. Once it is on the books, all are held in compliance.

But if you still have questions or do not understand some point,

We understand. The lack of comprehension you perceive is your own.

it will be a pleasure for me to precise my statement.

We would be greatly pleasured if you could actually make an attempt at utilizing proper english. You will almost definitely repeat yourself anyways, without making any more sense than you have thus far, though, nor would I expect your language usage to improve, so whatever. I would love to be proven wrong on wither one of those point.

I didn't say the proposal was useless. I said that I doubted that it would save the mods any work because the n00bs who don't read stickies also won't read the list of UN resolutions.

I'm still in favor of it because it moves an OOC rule into IC.

Sorry man, I was quoting the other guy. If that was an error...it was his fault.

VK

Sorry man, I was quoting the other guy. If that was an error...it was his fault.

VK

No problem. I probably should have quoted Gallantaria too, since I was really reacting to his post.

OOC: If I understand correctly, the main problem is that many newbies are submitting UN Army proposals, which Fris & Co. have to shoot down. Their hope is that this proposal will reduce the number of those illegal proposals. Frankly, I'm sceptical, since the n00bs won't read the current resolutions any better than they read FAQs and stickys, but it might help some. Also, it gives an IC reason why UN armies aren't allowed, rather than it being an edict from above, which I prefer.

OOC: Yes, but it gives us something else to point at and say "See! It's illegal, not just against mod rules, but against other legislation, so hahahah!" It simply confirms the illegality of any UN Army legislation, shuts up people who bitch about mods restricting what they can write.

Yeah, lock this thread, please.

[EDIT@DBL: We have an official topic now; look up.]