NationStates Jolt Archive

Kotire's UN Ambassidor has put forward a draft proposal to the UN for vote.
Please look at it, read it, consider it and endorse if found satisfactory.

The Draft is called "DEMOCRATIC COALITION" and comes from, and follows a similar form to a proposal called the "Cosmopolitan Institutional Proposal" by two philosophers named Buchannan and Keohane.

The situation arrises when a state is concerned for the Human Rights of either it's own nation (due to a threat of another launching an imminent attack) or another nation's people suffering under an oppressive regeim that is carrying out massive violations of Human Rights.
The proposal allows for Humanitarian Intervention on a military level only as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted, and proof of the necessity to intervine is made widely known. If this cause for intervention is rejected by a UN Security Council member, possibly because one of the perminant S.C members has used it's veto power to block action (perhaps out of a conflic of interest- ie the member has alliances or trade with the violating state) the state seeking to intervine may then go to a coalition of Democratic states from a variety of cultures etc who have no track record of violence, no ideology of violence and no un-ambiguous violations of Human Rights who would have the authority to authorise and legitemate any intervention if so proven to be in the best interests of all.

The Democratic Coalition would also be empowered to keep the intervening state accountable for their actions by imposing sanctions on the state if their intention and/or evidence for intervention is flawed or false, but also to vindicate the state if it is found to be true in it's intentions and methods of intervention.

Happy reading and thinking...

The situation arrises when a state is concerned for the Human Rights of either it's own nation (due to a threat of another launching an imminent attack) or another nation's people suffering under an oppressive regeim that is carrying out massive violations of Human Rights.

The proposal allows for Humanitarian Intervention on a military level only as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted, and proof of the necessity to intervine is made widely known. If this cause for intervention is rejected by a UN Security Council member, possibly because one of the perminant S.C members has used it's veto power to block action (perhaps out of a conflic of interest- ie the member has alliances or trade with the violating state) the state seeking to intervine may then go to a coalition of Democratic states from a variety of cultures etc who have no track record of violence, no ideology of violence and no un-ambiguous violations of Human Rights who would have the authority to authorise and legitemate any intervention if so proven to be in the best interests of all.

The Democratic Coalition would also be empowered to keep the intervening state accountable for their actions by imposing sanctions on the state if their intention and/or evidence for intervention is flawed or false, but also to vindicate the state if it is found to be true in it's intentions and methods of intervention.

Happy reading and thinking...

This is a good start.

I think one of the first things that comes to mind is that this UN does not really have a Security Council. [OOC: NationStates is more fantasy than real-world, so our UN is a bit different. You'll need to remove the references the UN Security Council.]

I think the key point behind your draft proposal is the idea that independent international peacekeeping missions should be composed of coalitions of nations that a history of peaceful relations *and* that the justification for humanitarian intervention should be strong and subjected to economic sanctions of the UN if they are not.

The trick is in determining how and when that can happen. :/

DEMOCRATIC COALITION
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Kotire

Description: RECOGNISING the value of the United Nations in reguards to Security, especially the Security Council

ALSO RECOGNISING that because of UN Security Council Veto powers for Perminient Members, cases may arise when Humanitarian Intervention is blocked, even thouh Just Cause has been established for Humanitarian Intervention, because of Veto powers.

RECOMENDS establishing a DEMOCRATIC COALITION of nations that have;
NO track record of Human Rights Violations

NO ideology of Militrism
Democratic processes of representation

TO monitor the process of Humanitarian Intervention and to keep those states seeking to enact such interventions accountable to the World Community and United Nations General Assembly even if Security Council Veto had blocked the state's application because of conflict of interest with a Veto State.

ALLOWING for the Democratic Coalition to be empowered to Authorise ONLY Humanitarian Intervention when extensive evidence compells action, which may include Military Force, ONLY as a LAST RESORT.

ENSURING that the Democratic Coalition keeps the initiating state of Humanitarian Intervention Accountable for the Justice of their actions and the means in which they conduct the said Intervention.

SHOULD the Democratic Coaltition find the initiating state to be acting unjustly they will be empowered to impose strict sanctions upon the said state, so as to ensure that unjust action is not taken.

CONCLUDING that a Democratic Coalition of States comprised of a variety of states that meet the above criteria be established for the purpose of providing an alternative authorisation institution to the Security Council ONLY for the authorisation of Humanitarian Intervention once proven stringently and in the best interest of all. Then in keeping all active States involved accountable for their actions, and imposing sanctions where appropriate.

THUS ensuring Human Rights be protected and defended by force if necessary.

ooc: for everyone too lazy to look it up :p

CONCLUDING that a Democratic Coalition of States comprised of a variety of states that meet the above criteria

What's the criterea for a nation be a part of this Democratic Coalition?

ooc (again): does this violate the rule about having no standing UN Peacekeeping force?

ooc: for everyone too lazy to look it up :p



What's the criterea for a nation be a part of this Democratic Coalition?

ooc (again): does this violate the rule about having no standing UN Peacekeeping force?

ANSWER:

The criteria for being a member of the Democratic Coalition is that they must have no unambiguous record of Human Rights Abuses, and have Democratic government systems etc.

I don't believe it violates the rule of having no standing UN peace Keeping force, because any force that the Democratic Coalition would wield would be primarily the authority to place sanctions on states where appropriate, and if military force was used, it would comprise of the member states armed forces who make up the Democratic Coalition..

I don't believe it violates the rule of having no standing UN peace Keeping force, because any force that the Democratic Coalition would wield would be primarily the authority to place sanctions on states where appropriate, and if military force was used, it would comprise of the member states armed forces who make up the Democratic Coalition..
Well, you can believe that all you like. However, you're wrong. For you see, the rule is quite simple, it's the UN doesn't get an army period. There are no qualifiers on the rule which would make any sort of UN military or police force legal. Go back and read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and try again. And while you're at it, yank out the parts about the "Security Council" as we don't have one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't believe it violates the rule of having no standing UN peace Keeping forceYou'd be wrong in that belief.

so my intuition and common sense were both right for once...