NationStates Jolt Archive

I finally found a propsal I have submitted as an ealier nation that I would wish to reintroduce, but I realize that times change, and it might not work...

NSUN Influence in Armed Conflict
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the maintenance of international peace and security,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high numbers of lives lost as a result of war,

RECOGNISING that peace and security are beneficial to all,

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention which shall address the basic causes of armed conflict,

RECOGNISING the need to strengthen the role of the NSUN in the prevention of violent conflicts:

1. EXPRESSES its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the NSUN in preventing armed conflicts;

2. CREATES an NSUN War Prevention Council with the stated objective of preventing and ending armed conflicts;
(a) the Council shall continually assess the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict;
(b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;
(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions;
(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;
(e) the Council shall make regular public reports to discuss the progress of the Council's current efforts to prevent and end armed conflicts.

Any ideas of improvements, to gain members and supports?

Here was the original thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453483

Drop. Unless I'm mistaken, this would be considered illegal under the "No UN Army" rule

Drop. Unless I'm mistaken, this would be considered illegal under the "No UN Army" rule

You are mistaken. Upon seeing the title, I was all set to make the same comment, but once I actually read the proposal, it was clear that it doesn't call for the creation of a UN army at all. I suggest you try reading it again.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I'd be more inclined to go the AUC route on this one myself.

Er....ok, perhaps I do have to withdraw my comment....

One might also consider a two-step approach, the first being the repeal of the "No UN Army" rule. (We mention this only in the spirit of the purpose that brought together the "original" august body of that name....)

OOC: I'd be more inclined to go the AUC route on this one myself.

May be true, but I would assume that real, UN member states would sit on the board, just like how the PTT (perantum tribunal) was formed. So gnomes won't be running it, UN member states would.

What I would want to know is what else should I do other than introduce this committe? I could make an "URGE" statement for member states to intervene in current conflicts to do peacekeeping operations...as well as prehaps placing arms embargos on nations that do engage in wars...but that might be too dangerous.

One might also consider a two-step approach, the first being the repeal of the "No UN Army" rule. (We mention this only in the spirit of the purpose that brought together the "original" august body of that name....)

I really don't want to break the No UN Army code. Not only is it illegal (because the developers say so), but really, I don't want a huge army breathing down my back.

May be true, but I would assume that real, UN member states would sit on the board, just like how the PTT (perantum tribunal) was formed. So gnomes won't be running it, UN member states would.Bzzt! Wrong current committee rules state that all committees are staffed by beings whose sole existence is to serve on said committee. The Preternama Panel predates the creation of that rule and as such is grandfathered in (not to mention that the few times people tried to actually form one it failed miserably). On the other hand, since you didn't say anything about the committee being staffed by nations in your proposal, you're fine.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

One might also consider a two-step approach, the first being the repeal of the "No UN Army" rule. (We mention this only in the spirit of the purpose that brought together the "original" august body of that name....)OOC: Actually you can't repeal that rule as it's not established by a resolution (although we did try to write a resolution establishing that once). The rule was created due to the fact that wars are conducted through RP and in order for a UN military to be unbiased it would have to be run by a mod and they're kept busy enough just maintaining order around here.

(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions;

I'd drop the bolded bit. It doesn't take much imagination to read this as (tah-dah!) creating an army, eg -- we're allowed to help out enforcing, guys, let's go get ourselves some helpful enforcers!

If you want to keep it, I think it needs "through all appropriate peaceful means", or some such waffle. Or you could go all specific and list trade sanctions, boycotts, etc, but then you'd have to make sure you didn't run afoul of existing resolutions.

If you do drop the bolded bit, then what's left seems to be a bit unnecessary. Why bother reaffirming resolutions, except as a feel-good exercise?

EDIT: You could URGE the formation of rgional mediation organisations in accordance with this clause:

b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;

Though that's reading more into it than you probably intended.

What I would want to know is what else should I do other than introduce this committe? I could make an "URGE" statement for member states to intervene in current conflicts to do peacekeeping operations...as well as prehaps placing arms embargos on nations that do engage in wars...but that might be too dangerous.

Right now, you are narrowly holding onto a legal proposal (and, actually, you may very well not be holding one). You add that line, I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be legal anymore.

Some relevant rules:

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Even the enforcement of UN resolutions fails (to my understanding) the World Police component. Giving it a mandate to interfere in military conflicts MAY violate the army, but I honestly can't say


* Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

While the entire thing is relevant, the bolded section is important for any mandates you may put into your proposal.

Here's some other idea that I have, taking in all suggestions. I hope this is legal as well:

NSUN Influence in Armed Conflict
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the maintenance of international peace and security,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high numbers of lives lost as a result of war,

RECOGNISING that peace and security are beneficial to all,

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention which shall address the basic causes of armed conflict,

RECOGNISING the need to strengthen the role of the NSUN in the prevention of violent conflicts:

1. EXPRESSES its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the NSUN in preventing armed conflicts;

2. URGES the international community to strengthen cooperation and communication to prevent further armed conflict

3. REAFFIRMS the critical importance of a regional approach to conflict prevention.

4. CREATES an NSUN War Prevention Council with the stated objective of preventing and ending armed conflicts;
(a) the Council shall continually assess the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict;
(b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;
(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means;
(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;
(e) the Council shall make regular public reports to discuss the progress of the Council's current efforts to prevent and end armed conflicts.

5. ACCEPTS the existence of 'peacekeeping operations' in the world and give rules by which to govern them:
(a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a netural army in between the parties in a conflict,
(b)A Peacekeeping Operation is in effective only if all parties in the conflict agree for a peacekeeping operation to occur,
(c)The United Nations cannot authorize any peacekeeping operations at all, only states can do that.
(d)All nations are encourged to help out in Peacekeeping Operations around the world, following this definition of peacekeeping.
(e)Peacekeeping should not be used as an excuse to to invade nations and thereby start wars.

Clause 5 exist because I wonder of making rules for peacekeeping operations...nations do them all the time, but I see that it is usually used as a smokescreen for a military invasion, and I do not like that to happen at all.

NSUN Influence in Armed Conflict
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

I'll have to see what you come up with, but any actual resolution on this sort of thing with an actual strength of Significant has caution lights blinking

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the maintenance of international peace and security,

The NSUN is not allowed to maintain international peace and security as it can't have an army (to maintain peace - and yes, that includes peace keepers) or a police force (to maintain security). It can, however, promote both.

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high numbers of lives lost as a result of war,

RECOGNISING that peace and security are beneficial to all,

What about arms dealers?

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention which shall address the basic causes of armed conflict,

RECOGNISING the need to strengthen the role of the NSUN in the prevention of violent conflicts:

No matter how great the need, the UN is severely hindered by her secretariat's desire not to get involved in violent conflicts.

1. EXPRESSES its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the NSUN in preventing armed conflicts;

2. URGES the international community to strengthen cooperation and communication to prevent further armed conflict

3. REAFFIRMS the critical importance of a regional approach to conflict prevention.

None of these are problematic, though they have almost no action to them so running them as being equivalent to the other operative clauses makes people wary about it. Their net effect is sentiments.

4. CREATES an NSUN War Prevention Council with the stated objective of preventing and ending armed conflicts;
(a) the Council shall continually assess the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict;
(b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;
(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means;
(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;
(e) the Council shall make regular public reports to discuss the progress of the Council's current efforts to prevent and end armed conflicts.

I really want to toss "diplomatic" in there, somewhere (anywhere, really) so that it can more clearly denote separation from a UN Army proposal. It might not be necessary, but it would certainly help

5. ACCEPTS the existence of 'peacekeeping operations' in the world and give rules by which to govern them:
(a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a netural army in between the parties in a conflict,
(b)A Peacekeeping Operation is in effective only if all parties in the conflict agree for a peacekeeping operation to occur,

"is in effective" -> "is effective"

(c)The United Nations cannot authorize any peacekeeping operations at all, only states can do that.

Very good. The perfectionist in my doesn't like the wording, but it is fine for the stated purpose. Actually....drop "at all", change "can" to "may" and the comma to a semi-colon

(d)All nations are encourged to help out in Peacekeeping Operations around the world, following this definition of peacekeeping.

"encourged" -> "encouraged"

(e)Peacekeeping should not be used as an excuse to to invade nations and thereby start wars.

Excellent.

A part of me wants to fiddle with 5 for a bit which will tweak the concept and purpose of it slightly. I'll get back to you when I've figured it out...

Will also post this on Reclaimation as well. Another draft:

NSUN Influence in Armed Conflict
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant (Possibly might change to Mild)

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the promotion of international peace and security,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high numbers of lives lost as a result of war,

RECOGNISING that peace and security are beneficial to all member and non-member states,

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention which shall address the basic causes of armed conflict,

EXPRESSING its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the NSUN in preventing armed conflicts;

1. URGES the international community to strengthen cooperation and communication to prevent further armed conflict

2. REAFFIRMS the critical importance of a regional approach to conflict prevention.

3. CREATES an NSUN War Prevention Council with the stated objective of preventing and ending armed conflicts diplomatically;
(a) the Council shall continually assess the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict;
(b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;
(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means;
(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;
(e) the Council shall make regular public reports to discuss the progress of the Council's current efforts to prevent and end armed conflicts.

4. ACCEPTS the existence of 'peacekeeping operations' in the world and give rules by which to govern them:
(a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a netural army in between the parties in a conflict.
(b)A Peacekeeping Operation is effective only if all parties in the conflict agree for a peacekeeping operation to occur.
(c)The United Nations cannot authorize any peacekeeping operations; only states may do that.
(d)All nations are encouraged to help out in Peacekeeping Operations around the world, following this definition of peacekeeping.
(e)Peacekeeping should not be used as an excuse to to invade nations and thereby start wars.

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the promotion of international peace and security,


I would replace this by :

REAFFIRMING that NSUN can work with the development of international rules only in a context of good agreement between nations and thus of international peace and security;

Submitted for a test run.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=infulence

REAFFIRMING that NSUN can work with the development of international rules only in a context of good agreement between nations and thus of international peace and security,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high numbers of lives lost as a result of war,

RECOGNISING that peace and security are beneficial to all member and non-member states,

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention which shall address the basic causes of armed conflict,

EXPRESSING its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the NSUN in preventing armed conflicts;

1. URGES the international community to strengthen cooperation and communication to prevent further armed conflict

2. REAFFIRMS the critical importance of a regional approach to conflict prevention.

3. CREATES an NSUN War Prevention Council with the stated objective of preventing and ending armed conflicts diplomatically;
(a) the Council shall continually assess the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict;
(b) the Council shall support regional mediation initiatives in co-operation with regional organizations involved;
(c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means;
(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;
(e) the Council shall make regular public reports to discuss the progress of the Council's current efforts to prevent and end armed conflicts.

4. ACCEPTS the existence of 'peacekeeping operations' in the world and give rules by which to govern them:
(a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a netural army in between the parties in a conflict.
(b)A Peacekeeping Operation is effective only if all parties in the conflict agree for a peacekeeping operation to occur.
(c)The United Nations cannot authorize any peacekeeping operations; only states may do that.
(d)All nations are encouraged to help out in Peacekeeping Operations around the world, following this definition of peacekeeping.
(e)Peacekeeping should not be used as an excuse to to invade nations and thereby start wars.

I would replace this by :

Ok, I've got to ask: why?

Also, why not both?

"infulence"?

Ok, I've got to ask: why?

Also, why not both?

You're right, we could let both.

I still would like to know the reasoning behind that line....

"infulence"?

Its main purpose is to indicate that the UN would be able to 'infulence' armed conflict by trying to end it.

If there is a better way of phrasing it, I think that would be a good idea.

I still would like to know the reasoning behind that line....

Prehaps so that one can argue why the UN should go and have peace and international security...in order to accomplish the goals within a framework.

We suspect Mme Vermithrax was querying the spelling of the word.

If there is a better way of phrasing it, I think that would be a good idea.Perhaps influence?

I still would like to know the reasoning behind that line....

BELIEVING that a responsibility of the NSUN should be the promotion of international peace and security,

For me this is not an argument but an assertion, so I could ask why do you believe that this is a responsability of the NSUN ?

And for me this is the answer and the argument :

REAFFIRMING that NSUN can work with the development of international rules only in a context of good agreement between nations and thus of international peace and security,

"infulence"?

OOC:
= 'adding fuel', as in "pouring oil on troubled fires"? ;)

For me this is not an argument but an assertion,

Hence the use of the word "BELIEVING"

so I could ask why do you believe that this is a responsability of the NSUN ?

And for me this is the answer and the argument :

You see, here's why I have a problem with that. Having an assertion without the latter lets the individual nations define their own reason for the assertion being true (if they believe it to be true). Your statement, instead, puts the blinders on to the assertion and actually defines limitations and powers for the UN itself - a concerning item. Particularly, I'm concerned with the use of the word "only". Whether the essence of that statement is true or not, I would like to not have that statement in as it could, very well, restrict an excellent proposal in the future. We don't know what sort of great ideas are on the horizon nor have we seen a reason to believe that there are proposals that disagree with this statement causing a problem (in part because of the UN Army restriction).

I'd rather the line wasn't included....

EDIT: Also, the assertion justifies the existance of the proposal, your line justifies the route of the proposal, but not the proposal itself.

As you wish but i'm not beleiving, I'm sure...

Resubmitted, without the Reaffirming clause, with the Beliving clause. Influence spelt right.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=influence

I believe you wanted "believing".

Having seen this proposal presented once again in an attempt to reach a quorum Latoma feels it desirable to present a copy of a telegram sent by the United Federation of Allied Tion to the proposing nation highlighting the concerns Allied Tion and Latoma as well as other allied powers have with this proposal.-------



Allied Tion Foreign Ministry
Office for United Nations Affairs

Official Communiqué to The Republic of SilentScope001


To the Republic of SilentScope001, the Foreign Ministry wishes to inform you that your request for the endorsement of your bill was forwarded to the presidential office for review.

Allied Tion wishes to express it’s greatest support for the concern your republic has shown for the many who loose their lives as a result of war in this world and agrees with your statement that, fundamentally, peace is a desirable goals for all nations be they UN members or not.

Despite this basic agreement with the fundamental ideals put forward by this proposal the presidents office has expressed a number of concerns regarding your proposed UN legislation.

According to section 3 subsection B of your proposal the council would support regional mediation in the case of a risk of armed conflict. While Allied Tion and it’s allied nations support the idea of negotiations between parties with the potential for armed conflict the Federation must express its concern that such mediation could lend recognition to terrorist, rebel or extremist groups that form member parties in many conflicts.

Section 3 subsection C appears to be open to dangerous interpretation. The statement that “the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions” could, in light of the compliance ministry already ensuring that resolutions are adopted by member states, be construed to provide an open door for direct enforcement of resolutions by the council on member and potentially non member states involved in conflicts due to the vague wording used. The second part of subsection C, “will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means” is also dangerously vague, as it does not tie it in with the provisions of section 4. “Appropriate peaceful means” could be defined in a number of dangerous ways to involve almost any action that does not result in bloodshed with official trade sanctions, diplomatic offensives and incitement and sedition within the offending nation all potentially falling within the power of the council.

Our concerns are exacerbated by S3SS(D) which effectively broadens the councils ability to act to during any armed conflict. This part of your proposal could be considered to grant the N.S.U.N.W.P.C the legal mandate to utilise any action that does not result in “bloodshed” to bring an end to conflict. This does not recognise the necessary nature of some conflicts, the moral issues involved, does not mandate the recognition of neither regional factors nor the sovereign rights of governments. This provision has been written so as to effectively fall outside the limitations of section 4 and provides a very piece of legislation that amounts to a mandate to a UN body to bring about an end to conflict by any and all means that do not involve “bloodshed” (a vague word in itself that would not preclude the use of several weapons systems in the possession of a number of UN member states and therefore potentially at the disposal of the W.P.C.

On detailed review of section 4 the Government of Allied Tion wishes to express several additional concerns.


(a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a neutral army in between the parties in a conflict.

This subsection provides that almost any action undertaken with the aim of creating the conditions for a sustainable peace. Allied Tion notes that this could be seen to include mediation efforts, humanitarian aid and other activities. This is a vital problem when combined with subsection C. The combination of these subsections effectively provides that all the actions it is proposed the W.P.C and the humanitarian actions, indeed potentially many of the actions undertaken by the UN could not be undertaken legally as they would be classified as peacekeeping and thus placed under the restriction of the authorisation of states. Allied Tion wishes to note the contradictory nature of this provision when the ideals of section 3 of this proposal are considered.


Allied Tion and its allies fundamentally and deeply disagree with the statements that peacekeeping can only be effective when all warring parties agree for it to occur and also that it may never be used as an excuse for the invasion of another country.. Allied Tion wishes to quote the example of a recent civil war within the Constitutional monarchy of Mc Robert. Concerned at the bloody nature of the conflict begun largely because of the control of the two opposing factions by parties that could only be described as fanatics Latoman and Tionian troops launched operation white dove, a peacekeeping mission that involved 470,000 alliance personnel. The operation saw the overnight forced disarmament of the opposing forces combined with the arrest of the two high commands. The operation resulted in less than 127 deaths due to the shock of the Allied operation, extensive use of non-lethal weaponry and the rapid elimination of the fanatical opposing leaders.

This operation involved all those things that this bill would restrict its members from doing; violating another nations territory to undertake peacekeeping, engage in peacekeeping without the agreement of both parties and, if required, utilize lethal force for the fulfillment of the mission. However it is clear had these actions not be taken, had the dove not been projected onto that nation that millions would now lie dead while debate, negotiation and mediation continued with no results whatsoever.

Allied Tion applauds the desire to avoid conflict but we are convinced that this bill does nothing to achieve this. It is dangerously contradictory, extremely restrictive and potentially deadly.

We do not live in a perfect world by any means and the price of such noble ideals is often far too high. If lives are to be saved then more extreme actions must be undertaken by the sovereign nations of the UN and indeed even non members. States should be free to act in the areas of peacekeeping and in the pursuit of peace as required, unfettered by contradictory and restrictive legislation.

Allied Tion therefore denies endorsing the proposal in questions with the desire to retain its right to act to preserve peace and the values of its people and this body by any and all means it sees necessary.

If you're in such a rush you can't spell-check your proposal, it doesn't suggest wondrous bounty is going to come of it. I would really suggest just slowing down a bit, and waiting until people have had time to make comments and suggestions. For starters, 'believing' has an e, 'basic' has no space in the middle, 'neutral' is 'eut' not 'etu', and there's some inconsistency of punctuation.
3 (c) the Council shall reaffirm all UN resolutions and will help out in enforcing these resolutions through all appropriate peaceful means;
Not sure about this bit. It shouldn't be the job of this council to enforce unrelated resolutions, and they are assumed to require no enforcement anyway.
4 (a)"Peacekeeping" is defined as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace", and that the most common way of peacekeeping is to place a netural army in between the parties in a conflict.
This doesn't seem a quite accurate definition. It would mean sending negotiators was a peackeeping mission: and given your later provision, would prohibit the UN from doing that.
(b)A Peacekeeping Operation is effective only if all parties in the conflict agree for a peacekeeping operation to occur.
Not true: peacekeeping operations usually wouldn't be necessary if everyone agreed it were needed. What violence would they be stopping?
(c)The United Nations cannot authorize any peacekeeping operations; only states may do that.
"Humanitarian Intervention" has already granted the UN the right to authorise missions that would meet your definition of peacekeeping.
(e)Peacekeeping should not be used as an excuse to to invade nations and thereby start wars.
Uh, 'should not'? How about 'must absolutely never under any imaginable circumstances'.

As yet, we don't think this is ready to support.

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

Well, the spellcheck for NS and for Word was broken, and I thought it was spelt-checked correctly. It turned out I was wrong.

I also got criticism about the resolution, but at least it was good. I know what is the problem of the resolution. Not only that, but I had to give up my ability to access the Internet at home and at school to play NS, in order to go and get premission from my parents to do this sort of thing. I don't know if I am able to come back here, meaning that I may not be able to fix these flaws...

Just some corrections, but I do understand the point of revising the resolution's ideas, and will hopefully come up with a second draft [3c is likely to be coming out]:

This doesn't seem a quite accurate definition. It would mean sending negotiators was a peackeeping mission: and given your later provision, would prohibit the UN from doing that.

I get your point.

Not true: peacekeeping operations usually wouldn't be necessary if everyone agreed it were needed. What violence would they be stopping?

Thing is, if no side agreed for a peacekeeping operation, then I don't see how a peacekeeping operation could easily be possible. I don't want people sending in troops to blow up one side to use that as 'peacekeeping', because I see that not as peacekeeping.

I'd suppose some nations would want a peacekeeping operation to stop either nation from advancing. In the false land of RL, it is likely that two nations hate each other a lot, and they both want peacekeepers, so that the second side don't go and attack the first side. It is done as a way to assure fears and stresses between the two sides, since if the two armies see each other face-to-face, there may be an accidental misfire that can restart the conflict.

"Humanitarian Intervention" has already granted the UN the right to authorise missions that would meet your definition of peacekeeping.

I'd call it "peace-making", not exactly "peacekeeping", and more the UN authorizing wars to stop human right abuses. A peacekeeping mission is effective only when nations agree to do such a thing, and I'd doubt a tinpot dictator would agree to get himself overthrown.

Uh, 'should not'? How about 'must absolutely never under any imaginable circumstances'.

I should stress that more, true.

According to section 3 subsection B of your proposal the council would support regional mediation in the case of a risk of armed conflict. While Allied Tion and it’s allied nations support the idea of negotiations between parties with the potential for armed conflict the Federation must express its concern that such mediation could lend recognition to terrorist, rebel or extremist groups that form member parties in many conflicts.

That may be true. Terrorist, rebels, and extermist groups, if they are too radical, may not want regional mediation or to talk (and if they do want to talk, then there may be a way to get them to stop their violent struggle) ...and talking to them does not mean recognition of their causes.

Our concerns are exacerbated by S3SS(D) which effectively broadens the councils ability to act to during any armed conflict. This part of your proposal could be considered to grant the N.S.U.N.W.P.C the legal mandate to utilise any action that does not result in “bloodshed” to bring an end to conflict. This does not recognise the necessary nature of some conflicts, the moral issues involved, does not mandate the recognition of neither regional factors nor the sovereign rights of governments. This provision has been written so as to effectively fall outside the limitations of section 4 and provides a very piece of legislation that amounts to a mandate to a UN body to bring about an end to conflict by any and all means that do not involve “bloodshed” (a vague word in itself that would not preclude the use of several weapons systems in the possession of a number of UN member states and therefore potentially at the disposal of the W.P.C.

(d) in the event of an armed conflict developing, the Council shall try to end the armed conflict in a peaceful and bloodless manner;

So, using violence to stop armed conflict would not count as being "peaceful". The only thing they can do is send diplomats, which both sides could turn away and continue fighting. I should however amend that to say "diplomatically" so that it would not be confused. I also understand the "morality" of some conflicts, which is why you could also contact the TPP and use the "Humanitarian Intervention" resolution, which allows for the "necessary" conflicts needed to stop human right abuses.

Allied Tion and its allies fundamentally and deeply disagree with the statements that peacekeeping can only be effective when all warring parties agree for it to occur and also that it may never be used as an excuse for the invasion of another country.. Allied Tion wishes to quote the example of a recent civil war within the Constitutional monarchy of Mc Robert. Concerned at the bloody nature of the conflict begun largely because of the control of the two opposing factions by parties that could only be described as fanatics Latoman and Tionian troops launched operation white dove, a peacekeeping mission that involved 470,000 alliance personnel. The operation saw the overnight forced disarmament of the opposing forces combined with the arrest of the two high commands. The operation resulted in less than 127 deaths due to the shock of the Allied operation, extensive use of non-lethal weaponry and the rapid elimination of the fanatical opposing leaders.

While I understand the necessary nature of this, I would also like to point out that we have seen "peacekeeping operations" similar to what you describe, but far, far less successful. It was this that has motivated us to do this, as we have seen one nation in praticular suffer, and have soon get accused by the native populations of being imperialists.

Let us point to the country of Neoman as an example of what I mean. A long time ago, this country was alleged to have committed one of the worst human right abuses ever, killing off countless people. A team of nations saw this as an excuse to do a "peacekeeping" operation to overthrow Macavo. Hunderds of thousands of people died in a 'counter-genocide' that followed. The conflict had to be submitted to arbitration in order to stop the violence and to stop the genocides by both sides. This experience has made us wary of operations like these, as they sometimes can work, but rarely does.

I'd only recommend the "Humanitarian Intervention" resolution as a way to deal with the crisis, by contacting the TPP, but making sure that they vote quickly and agree to your idea. It might be effienct enough to get them to agree within 3 hours, and therefore can begin such an "intervention". Alternatively, I would call it "peace-making" rather than "peacekeeping", which the resolution does not deal with.
===
This does need a lot of work, but at least I got feedback. Thanks.

(EDIT: Changed the name of the country which I talked about the genocide and the counter-genocide. It is called "Neoman", not Macavo.)

Well, the spellcheck for NS and for Word was broken, and I thought it was spelt-checked correctly. It turned out I was wrong.

Allow me to give you a piece of advice regarding Word's spellchecker, it tends to skip over words in all caps. A piece of information I didn't know about until resolution #109 came up for vote and someone complained about a typo.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative