NationStates Jolt Archive

WHEREAS the numerous unjust wars which threaten world security can only be sustained by the forbearance of this body;

WHEREAS the intensification of these wars has resulted in widening international violence with little or no hope of peaceful settlement;

WHEREAS substantive action by this body against these wars maximizes the possibility of common welfare;

WHEREAS the incalculable victims of these wars justifies the interference of this body;

WHEREAS the continuance of these wars is damaging to the interest of the world and this body;

WHEREAS the persistence of these wars compromises the ability of this body to perform its essential functions:

NOW, therefore, be it resolved by the United Nation General Assembly that it is the conviction of this body that-

(1) it is not in the interest of the United Nations to allow the escalation of these wars;

(2) the primary objective of United Nations should be to have political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence;

(3) greater international support should assist political leaders in these aims; and

(4) the United Nations should pressure warring nations to develop an internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process.

NOTWITHSTANDING these resolves, it is the determination of this body that this resolution be non-binding and powerless to enact any consequential change to the expressed situation.

-

Why was this deleted? The Moderator says it was deleated because it was optional, but the text says nothing about being optional; it only says the UN will be powerless to enforce the resolution. But then, isn't the UN powerless to enforce anything?

I'm going to shock everyone here and, for a change, not rip into the nooblet. I'll leave him to the mods and the rest of y'all. ;)

Ahem. I am not the Moderator who deleted your proposal, but it's pretty obvious what the problem is. From the UN Proposal Rules, linked to from the UN page and Stickied here in this forum:

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Your proposal explicitly says it's non-binding, which runs afoul of this rule. The reason such statements in resolutions are silly is that the game engine does in fact affect your nation when a resolution passes. No resolution can be completely non-binding in terms of game-mechanics. There are simply degrees to which a resolution is more or less binding.

For more detailed explanation, see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280703&postcount=5).

Also, this appears to be little more than a thinly veiled opinion piece about the current state of affairs in the real world.