NationStates Jolt Archive

It's Back.
Continuity Of Government

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Significant

The General Assembly of The United Nations,

ALARMED by the possibility that war, terrorist acts and/or natural disasters could lead to the deaths of numerous UN member delegations;

CONCERNED that widespread loss of these member delegations would lead to a disruption of the normal functioning of the United Nations;

DETERMINED to ensure that the United Nations continues to function in the event of any man-made or natural disaster which results in the death or incapacitation of significant numbers of its member delegations;

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. All member nations will designate an official within their government who shall immediately have the authority to function as an acting UN ambassador in the event of the unexpected death, disappearance or incapacitation of the their permanent UN representative.

2. All member nations will maintain a list of qualified individuals who would be immediately available to fill vacancies in critical positions on their UN delegations.

3. All member nations will establish procedures to ensure that an acting UN delegation will be assembled in a timely manner.

4. Acting delegations shall be vested with full authority to exercise their respective nations' UN powers and privileges until such time as a permanent delegation is appointed by their government.
OK, this time for real. This has been submitted several times in the Political Stability category with a strength of "significant". I'd like an opinion on the legality of putting it in that category or suggestions on making it fit better as PS. I'd also be open to suggeations that might help it fit in some other category without making major changes.

My reasons for putting it in Political Stability are that while it doesn't restrict the political freedom of individuals, it does restrict the political freedom of national governments by forcing them to alter how they staff their UN delegations. And I believe it would have the effect of increasing law and order.

We still cannot support this unless, like the original draft, it includes a provision whereby my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel, is named to take the lead in UN affairs.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: You knew I was gonna post something IC like this, mate, right? ;)

Seriously, though, it looks good. While I may oppose it IC, it's still a worthy proposal OOC.

It's Back.

Like a fine Yeldan cheese I see. To be honest, I can't see how a disruption of normal functioning of the UN ... it's not like the UN has ever "normally" functioned in the first place, so how can it be disrupted? Oh sure we loose a delegate now and then, even on the floor of the General Assembly but these are often the result of their replacements than anything else. (Looks closely at the sheek.)

You have our full support. :D

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/t-220386035.jpghttp://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/RetiredWerepenguinsBanner.gif

OOC: You knew I was gonna post something IC like this, mate, right? ;)

Seriously, though, it looks good. While I may oppose it IC, it's still a worthy proposal OOC.
OOC: Heh. Yeah, I expected it. I'm also assuming that there will be some opposition on NatSov grounds if nothing else.

I'm wondering if it should be mild. Significant seems a bit much since it only affects UN delegations.

Not entirely certain about the new guidelines for strength, but this only affects nations' UN delegations, so how is it "Significant"?

The title always bugged me too, as it sounds like it's trying to assure the continuity of entire governments, when that is not the case.

Some minor nitpicking over the text:

1. All member nations will designate an official within their government who shall immediately have the authority to immediately function as an acting UN ambassador [in the event of ...?].

2. All member nations will maintain a list of qualified individuals who would be immediately available to immediately fill vacancies in critical positions on their UN delegations.

3. All member nations will establish procedures to ensure that an acting UN delegation will be assembled in a timely manner.

4. Acting delegations shall be vested with full authority to exercise their respective nations' UN powers and privileges until such time as a permanent delegation is appointed by their government.I haven't yet decided if my nation will support this.

Not entirely certain about the new guidelines for strength, but this only affects nations' UN delegations, so how is it "Significant"?
Yeah, I think it should be mild. I can't remember now why I had always submitted it as significant. Maybe it was because the earlier version had a committee with meddlesome powers, or the Koopman/Ole-Biscuitbarrel thing....

The title always bugged me too, as it sounds like it's trying to assure the continuity of entire governments, when that is not the case.
It's trying to ensure the continuity of the UN Government. :D

Some minor nitpicking over the text:
Let me see if I understand your suggestions. Did you mean:
1. All member nations will designate an official within their government who shall have the authority to function as an acting UN ambassador in the event of ...?.

2. All member nations will maintain a list of qualified individuals who would be available to fill vacancies in critical positions on their UN delegations.

3. All member nations will establish procedures to ensure that an acting UN delegation will be assembled in a timely manner.

4. Acting delegations shall be vested with full authority to exercise their respective nations' UN powers and privileges until such time as a permanent delegation is appointed by their government.
That looks good. I'll have to finish Article 1 with something about widespread death and destruction, loss of delegations, etc. I put "immediately" in there to indicate that these officials should be ready to serve immediately, but you're right, it's sort of unnecessary if they have already been designated as per Article 1.

[Prime Minister von Aschenbach turns to Dr. Olembe:]

Aschenbach: Pat, haven't we already done all this?

Olembe: Yes, sir.

Aschenbach: Wouldn't any government with an ounce of sense do it?

Olembe: Yes, sir.

Aschenbach: Then why do we need....

Olembe: Have you heard any of the debates here, sir?

Aschenbach: Good point, Pat. I guess we'll support this, right?

Olembe: Yes, sir.

[:D ]

That looks good. I'll have to finish Article 1 with something about widespread death and destruction, loss of delegations, etc.Or a simple "... in the event of the unexpected death, disappearance or incapacitation of the their permanent UN representative" might suffice?

I put "immediately" in there to indicate that these officials should be ready to serve immediately, but you're right, it's sort of unnecessary if they have already been designated as per Article 1.Actually, my edits were intended to move the word "immediately" in both clauses, to prevent split infinitives: "... who shall immediately have the authority etc.," "who would be immediately available etc." But if you think it sounds funny, just leave as is; not everyone's a grammatical nitpicker like me. :rolleyes:

Or a simple "... in the event of the unexpected death, disappearance or incapacitation of the their permanent UN representative" might suffice?

Actually, my edits were intended to move the word "immediately" in both clauses, to prevent split infinitives: "... who shall immediately have the authority etc.," "who would be immediately available etc." But if you think it sounds funny, just leave as is; not everyone's a grammatical nitpicker like me. :rolleyes:
OK, I get it now.
1. All member nations will designate an official within their government who shall immediately have the authority to function as an acting UN ambassador in the event of the unexpected death, disappearance or incapacitation of the their permanent UN representative.

2. All member nations will maintain a list of qualified individuals who would be immediately available to fill vacancies in critical positions on their UN delegations.

3. All member nations will establish procedures to ensure that an acting UN delegation will be assembled in a timely manner.

4. Acting delegations shall be vested with full authority to exercise their respective nations' UN powers and privileges until such time as a permanent delegation is appointed by their government.

I'll support this with the kennyedits in it. Previously, it would have put a real bind on our nations to pick up some folks at a moment's notice, transport them across whole dimensions, and have them get to work. And that's to say nothing of those nations who may take a while to even get to the UN building.

So, in short, we support.

Most courteously,

Actually, my edits were intended to move the word "immediately" in both clauses, to prevent split infinitives: "... who shall immediately have the authority etc.," "who would be immediately available etc." But if you think it sounds funny, just leave as is; not everyone's a grammatical nitpicker like me. :rolleyes:

1. All member nations will designate an official within their government who shall immediately have the authority to function as an acting UN ambassador in the event of the unexpected death, disappearance or incapacitation of the their permanent UN representative.

2. All member nations will maintain a list of qualified individuals who would be immediately available to fill vacancies in critical positions on their UN delegations.

Currently, both infinitives ARE split:

1)...who shall [immediately] have...
works better as ...who shall have the authority to function [immediately] as an acting...

As I remember it, it's TO / VERB / ADVERB, isn't it? My grammar's old and rusty, but that sounds right.

2)...who would be [immediately] available to fill...
works better as ...who would be available [immediately] to fill vacancies...

"Available" attaches itself to the verb cluster of "would be", and thus become part of the verb cluster. You can't put "immediately" between "to" and "fill", and since "immediately" is more properly modifying "available" than it is "fill", I believe it goes best there.

Apart from that, continuity of UN delegates' presence and function seems laudable, but is it, in fact necessary? I ask because while the text of the proposal is all in order, it has not convinced me of its own need to exist. I'm not trying to be a jackass, it's just what I got from reading it -- no offense meant.

Actually, my edits were intended to move the word "immediately" in both clauses, to prevent split infinitives: "... who shall immediately have the authority etc.," "who would be immediately available etc." But if you think it sounds funny, just leave as is; not everyone's a grammatical nitpicker like me. :rolleyes:

OOC: I'd hate to see this wander off into a debate on grammar, but I just had to say this....

Your edits to 2, 3, and 4 are excellent ones. The edit to 1 is fine, but I wouldn't do it. You're right. The original text violates the "no split infinitives" rule. But, to me, it's a case of knowing what the rule is so you know when to break it. What do we want to happen? We want the new guy to immediately start functioning. Splitting the infinitive positions the adverb beside the verb it should modify. This seems to be one of those cases where you sacrifice obedience to an arbitrary rule for the sake of clarity.

Awright. I'll shut up now.

OOC: I'd hate to see this wander off into a debate on grammar, but I just had to say this....

Your edits to 2, 3, and 4 are excellent ones. The edit to 1 is fine, but I wouldn't do it. You're right. The original text violates the "no split infinitives" rule. But, to me, it's a case of knowing what the rule is so you know when to break it. What do we want to happen? We want the new guy to immediately start functioning. Splitting the infinitive positions the adverb beside the verb it should modify. This seems to be one of those cases where you sacrifice obedience to an arbitrary rule for the sake of clarity.

Awright. I'll shut up now.

Now you've done it...:D

Splitting the infinitive positions the adverb not just beside, but in front of the verb -- a place it was never meant to be because the verb ranks higher (immediately can apply to any action, while function is the action indicated -- immediately tells you when, modifies the verb, and should come after the verb). The rule is not arbitrary.

To function (what to do) immediately (when to do it).

To immediately (when to do...what?) function (oh, okay).

The classic example of when to break the rule is what's arbitrary, and it comes from Star Trek. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is grammatically incorrect, but flowed well and became ingrained into cultural memory. "Go boldly" would have been just as poetic, but the rhythm more syncopated (with correct sylabic stress), and therefore less instantly appealing.

I am SUCH a colossal geek. Apologies to the Assembly, I'll say no more on this 'jacked topic.

We support this as well, although we find it amusing (but not surprising) that common sense protocols need to be legislated.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

You have a rare talent for devising proposals that combine clear, common sense mandates with intimations that manage to arouse the most spectacularly bizarre and annoying debates. I fully intend on supporting this should it come to vote; in such case, I also fully intend on steering well clear of the debate.

I also agree it should be Mild.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Your edits to 2, 3, and 4 are excellent ones. The edit to 1 is fine, but I wouldn't do it. You're right. The original text violates the "no split infinitives" rule. But, to me, it's a case of knowing what the rule is so you know when to break it. What do we want to happen? We want the new guy to immediately start functioning. Splitting the infinitive positions the adverb beside the verb it should modify. This seems to be one of those cases where you sacrifice obedience to an arbitrary rule for the sake of clarity.I didn't want to start a big debate on split infinitives either, but if "to function immediately" in Clause 1 works better for the author, then it's up to him.

Do forgive the threadjack, Yelda.

I didn't want to start a big debate on split infinitives either, but if "to function immediately" in Clause 1 works better for the author, then it's up to him.

Do forgive the threadjack, Yelda.
I'll probably leave it as is, punctuation and grammar are not my strong suit.

And don't worry about the threadjack. I've been known to hijack my own threads (which I'm about to do in the EPF thread).

Like a fine Yeldan cheese I see. To be honest, I can't see how a disruption of normal functioning of the UN ... it's not like the UN has ever "normally" functioned in the first place, so how can it be disrupted? Oh sure we loose a delegate now and then, even on the floor of the General Assembly but these are often the result of their replacements than anything else. (Looks closely at the sheek.)

You have our full support.

The sheik's hand goes to the hilt of his scimitar...

OOC: The rest of this will all be OOC.

OOC: Heh. Yeah, I expected it. I'm also assuming that there will be some opposition on NatSov grounds if nothing else.

From me? No, because it really only affects the functioning of the UN. Sure, it says individual nations must have back-up reps, but then by joining the UN we agreed to send a rep, didn't we? No big deal if the UN wants us to have a back-up. By joining the organisation in the first place, we agreed to abide by the rules of how it functions, from sending a rep to all the steps in creating resolutions.

I'm wondering if it should be mild. Significant seems a bit much since it only affects UN delegations.

Not entirely certain about the new guidelines for strength, but this only affects nations' UN delegations, so how is it "Significant"?

Yes, definitely mild.

The title always bugged me too, as it sounds like it's trying to assure the continuity of entire governments, when that is not the case.

I agree. The title is a bit misleading. It does sound like you're trying to force nations to delineate an order of succession (e.g., like the president, VP, speaker of the House, etc. chain in the US). I think you should really be more accurate with the title as well.

I agree with the Sheik on both the strength (Mild) and the possibility that thie title could cause some to believe that the resolution demands an order of succession. Then again, the debate over who reads titles and who reads texts is an entirely different issue.

While we applaud the sentiment behind this piece of legislation and concur that any nation with any common sense will have replacement representatives ready nominated, surely it is not the place of the United Nations to dictate the internal procedures of its member states? For the benefit of good governance, surely it is desirable for those members not competant enough to have backup plans in place to be self-excluded from such important business as the UN regularly conducts.

I assume the UN does in fact conduct important business, of course...

OOC: the split infinitive rule was invented by Victorian grammarians who were trying to make English work like Latin. Infinitives in Latin are a single word, so can't be split. They should have been looking at Welsh instead, which does exactly the same thing and I'll shut up now.

LAE supports this proposal.

Quorum Reached: In Queue! (I bet it falls off during the update though.)

Quorum Reached: In Queue! (I bet it falls off during the update though.)

You're going to have to make it through several updates, as they are at least two other proposals (maybe even three) ahead of this one in the queue. But then, on the flip side of that, you also have time to garner some more approvals to give yourself a bit of a cushion in case you lose some over the course of the next several days.

OOC: the split infinitive rule was invented by Victorian grammarians who were trying to make English work like Latin. Infinitives in Latin are a single word, so can't be split. They should have been looking at Welsh instead, which does exactly the same thing and I'll shut up now.

OOC: LMAO! I knew it wouldn't die! Good grief, but we're a load of grammar geeks, aren't we?

OOC: LMAO! I knew it wouldn't die! Good grief, but we're a load of grammar geeks, aren't we?

OOC: Hey, I'm new, I'm... young isn't the right word, but you know what I mean :-)