FAILED: Repeal 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' [Official Topic] [Archive]

Omigodtheykilledkenny

09-04-2007, 19:45

Repeal "Mutual Recognition of Borders"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #190 | Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: UN Resolution #190: Mutual Recognition of Borders (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=189) (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Determined to preserve global peace and stability through international initiatives to prevent unnecessary violence and bloodshed;

Pleased with the progress made so far in that area, in the shape of numerous resolutions seizing the United Nations and its membership of the matter, further promoting peaceful relations between member states, and mitigating the harmful effects of warfare on innocents;

Dismayed, however, that Mutual Recognition of Borders accomplishes next to nothing to that end;

Unimpressed by the resolution's establishment of a committee to review disputed borders, with no clear purpose, constitution, duties, or mandate that parties seeking its assistance agree to abide by its findings;

Concerned that wasteful and superfluous committees such as this will do nothing to promote global peace and security or prevent unnecessary loss of life in wars stemming from border disputes;

Disappointed that the resolution contains no check whatsoever against colonialist or imperialist aggressions;

Troubled that aggressor nations seeking to wage war on their neighbors and contribute to regional and international instability could conceivably circumvent the mandates of this article by simply disputing currently undisputed international borders;

Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them;

We hereby resolve, in witness of all here assembled, that Resolution #190: Mutual Recognition of Borders contributes little more than wasteful bureaucracy and pointless lip-service to the worthy goal of containing the imperialist ambitions of corrupt powers and protecting the peoples of disputed territories from the catastrophic effects of resulting border wars, and is therefore repealed.[A large screen above the speaker's lectern switches on; the imposing specters of Secretary Tehrani and Ambassador Faisano loom over the delegates.]

Tehrani: Greetings, honored representatives to the NationStates United Nations! I'm Secretary of State Alex Tehrani, and this is the Federal Republic's ambassador to the United Nations, Sammy Faisano!

[Sammy waves nervously.]

Tehrani: We're here to introduce you to our government's repeal of the resolution Mutual Recognition of Borders! We apologize we couldn't be there in person, owing to preparations for The Palentine's state visit this month. I know a lot of you have questions for the ambassador about this effort, but first, I have a couple questions I'd like to ask this repeal's author. Now Sammy, why would you want to repeal such a fine resolution like Mutual Recognition of Borders? It's cute! It's fluffy! It has a nice-sounding title! Surely it does some good!

Faisano: [smiles sheepishly] Well, that's the problem Mr. Secretary. It doesn't do anybody any good.

Tehrani: [gasps in mock-scandal] No!

Faisano: Yes. It says it is intended to prevent border wars, but it doesn't do a single thing to resolve border disputes. It sets up Another Useless Committee that is useless in every sense of the word; member states are under no obligation to consult it, or even abide by its findings. The committee has no purpose.

Tehrani: But it contains a clause requiring nations to recognize all currently undisputed borders! Wouldn't that prevent some border disputes?

Faisano: Sadly, no. All a nation need do is dispute a "currently undisputed border," and voila! The language is circumvented. Go ahead and roll out those tanks. This prevents no wars, it's a waste of space, and besides, the gnomes sitting on that worthless committee deserve a vacation. Let's give them one!

Tehrani: Well, you certainly make a valid case for removing this legislation, but I have another question: wouldn't repealing this leave a [gasps] gap in international law? Whatever will we do? Can we possibly replace this?

Faisano: Heh. Well, this body's notorious Replacement Hawks haven't offered a single suggestion as to what should go into a replacement, and they sure as heck haven't offered to write one themselves, and it's awful damn hard to "replace" a whole lot of nothing, anyway, so why don't we simply focus on this resolution's flaws? Does this legislation do anything it sets out to do or is just a dud? Does the committee serve any real purpose or is it just wasting everybody's time? Isn't this just a bad law that needs to go? If so, why not vote to repeal it? What good could possibly come from voting against repealing a law you know is bad?!

Tehrani: All very good points, Sammy. Now why don't we tell everyone what they'll get if they vote for this repeal?

Faisano: [holds up a 22-oz. bottle of a very aggressive brew adorned with a pair of gargoyles] A case of Double Bastard Ale, Mr. Secretary! Great for picking up chicks, or if you can't, giving you grand delusions that you could! Have a blast, make a fool of yourself, decorate someone's bathroom floor, and eventually collapse into a pool of your own urine, all in one night!

Tehrani: Sounds great, Sammy! But what do they get if they vote no?

Faisano: Even they will get something! A free demonstration of the horrors to come under the meaningless mandates of this resolution if they resist! Ladies?

[The doors to the halls burst open, and a troop of determined, busty women march down the aisles to join the delegates at the front of the chamber, all clutching very real-looking toy AK-47s (because we're sure the real ones wouldn't be allowed). They form a few perfect rows in front of the Assembly, giving everyone a healthy view of their cleavage, practically bursting out of their tight little commando uniforms, and take a few steps toward the ambassadors, brandishing their big guns, uhh, and their rifles too.]

Tehrani: That's some demonstration, Sammy!

Faisano: I'm sure it'll prove very persuasive too.

[The phone rings.]

Tehrani: [turns to Sammy with an affected expression of surprise] Why, who could that be? I'll just put them on speaker. [Clicks button.] Hello?

President Fernanda: [belches loudly] What's up guys?

Tehrani: Mr. President! Are you as excited about cleaning up the books and repealing superfluous legislation as we are?

Fernanda: I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Alex; I'm only calling to see if that scheme of yours is working out.

Tehrani: Er, what scheme are you talking about?

Fernanda: You know, that plan to get everyone drunk and horny so they'll support your stupid repeal.

Tehrani: [laughs nervously] There's no one drunk or horny here! I don't know what you're talking about! [Laughs again; and speaks in a low voice.] Stick to the script, will you?

Fernanda: Dude, what script? You call me and tell me you're sure your stupid proposal is gonna die a horrible, horrible death, like always, so you tell me you need me to lie to the UN and say you really mean it when you say you'll invade people, and that I'm really gonna give the order and obliterate the fluffies! [Scoffs.] Like I give a shit enough to waste my strippers on them! Now, when was I supposed to do this shit?

Tehrani: Umm, right now, Mr. President.

Fernanda: Huh?

CPESL "advisor": [on speaker] Your strippers are amateurs! You should have my government send a few of us over their borders. We'd show them a thing or two!

Fernanda: What the fuck are you doing talking? Did I say stop?

CPESL "advisor": Um, sorry, sir.

Tehrani: [hurriedly hanging up the phone] Umm, haha! That President Fernanda sure is a jokester, isn't he? Now, if any of you have any questions, feel free to direct them to Cdr. Jenny Chiang, our mission's illustrious security advisor, who is sitting in for us while we attend to business at home. So, uhh, thank you for your time, have fun, and don't come crying to us when some assholes threaten to invade you and they won't even agree to go to a UN committee meeting with you! Ha!

... I'm sick of this shit! Turn the camera off! Turn it off!

[The feed lapses, is followed by a few seconds of TV snow.]

David6

09-04-2007, 20:08

Paradica

09-04-2007, 20:45

Although the government of Paradica voted for MRoB, we do believe that the repeal makes good points. As such, we have decided to ABSTAIN.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

SilentScope001

09-04-2007, 21:18

It is illegal for anyone in SilentScope001 to be drunk. So we refuse your gift of booze. Thank you for your kindess.

We are for the Repeal, but we would like for a replacement to be made that will hopefully avoid the faults you have found.

Cookesland

09-04-2007, 21:35

Some very persuasive reasons for us to support this piece of legislation. We'll anounce Cookesland's position in a little bit.

*walks off with a bottle and his arm around a girl*

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Akimonad

10-04-2007, 00:19

[Dr. Jules Hodz snores.]

[Jolting awake.] HUHWha? What's this? That video or whatever it was bored the snot out of me.

[Notices a commando in his box.]

Um. I'm a widower. Please run along.

[Pushes the commando out of his box. The commando falls down the stairs.]

Ooh. Jeez. Sorry 'bout that.

Um, we support this repeal, because if we didn't, Fernanda would probably do something terrible.

Yeah. Dr. Hodz out.

[Hodz pulls out a remote and clicks on the TV in his box.]

Flibbleites

10-04-2007, 04:59

It's about time a repeal for this came up, FOR.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Allech-Atreus

10-04-2007, 05:07

Invisible tree people?

Fuck 'em.

You have our support!

Rang Erman
Advisor

Sanguinex

10-04-2007, 11:08

Hmm, now I'm in that situation that comes up sometimes, I've never liked this resolution, although not for the reasons in this repeal.
Although it doesn't affect us at this time as we did not have any disputed borders, we did not like that the resolution required all disputed borders to be recognised, we might have perfectly good reasons for disputing those borders. The other points were fine, its just the 'requires' that bothered us.

Oh well I think I'll vote for it anyway.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

Damanucus

10-04-2007, 13:19

Sorry, Sammy, but I'm thinking you're trying to make a whole lot of nothing out of a whole lot of nothing. It further disappoints me that it took your four months to discover this "loophole" (especially since, working off your written record, your immediate repeal speed is a helluva lot shorter), which in turn doesn't support your case any more. I think I'm prepared to agree with the small minority on this one: this resolution prevents you from doing something you want to, and as such you want to get it out of the way. Sorry, no go.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Linard Skyre
Emporer, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Cluichstan

10-04-2007, 15:26

Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg), the deputy Cluichstani ambassador to the UN and vice president of marketing and public relations for Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (CPESL), touched the comms panel on her desk.

"Rekooh, Bala here. We were just given a little video presentation from Paradise City."

"And?" the voice of Rekooh (http://www.tiscali.nl/images/4/6/penelope_cruz_01_8001.jpg), CPESL's VP of operations, purred from the other end.

"I'm not too fond of the way Fernanda's treating one of our girls," Bala said. "I suggest adding a surcharge for his behaviour."

"As you wish," Rekooh cooed.

"And please do make sure it's actually paid," Bala said. "We don't need another incident like we had when that cheapskate Riley showed up in the Death Star Canteen (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=228&st=0)."

"Agreed. Rekooh out."

WhaleCo Global LLC

10-04-2007, 19:06

I have been authorized to cast WhaleCo Global LLC's vote FOR this legislation.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Quintessence of Dust

10-04-2007, 19:20

I'm a little puzzled as to the current state of this repeal, as I'd think it'd attract fairly broad support. Whether you support the presumed intent of Mutual Recognition of Borders or viscerally oppose it, the fact it accomplishes none of it would tend to suggest it can be repealed without too much fuss. Hopefully the voting tally will square up as time goes on.

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

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 20:05

Sorry, Sammy, but I'm thinking you're trying to make a whole lot of nothing out of a whole lot of nothing.

You begin with an admission that the original resolution cosists of a whole lot of nothing. That, in and of itself, sounds like a good reason to support the repeal.

It further disappoints me that it took your four months to discover this "loophole"

If you'd care to go check the original discussion when MRB came up to vote, you will find that these issues were brought up by the Kennyite delegation, along with others, while MRB was being drafted, after it had been submitted, as it was at vote, and even after it had been passed.

(especially since, working off your written record, your immediate repeal speed is a helluva lot shorter),

The time he spent drafting a workable repeal for this is hardly any commentary on the validity of the arguments presented in it.

which in turn doesn't support your case any more.

So, you are intending to use his timeline for his repeal as an argument against it. That is . . . special.

I think I'm prepared to agree with the small minority on this one: this resolution prevents you from doing something you want to,

Apparently, you completely failed to actually read the repeal that you are attempting to critique. The resolution doesn't prevent anything. That's the problem.

and as such you want to get it out of the way.

We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area.

Sorry, no go.

So, to sum up your arguments:

1) You admit that MRB consists of nothing.
2) You misrepresent and impugn the intellect of the author
3) You believe that his patience in creation of this repeal has some bearing on the validity of the repeal itself
4) You believe that taking such a long time in repealing MRB should be held against the repeal
5) You demonstrate that you have not read the repeal or the arguments contained therein.
6) You insinuate that there are ulterior motives behind the repeal that have nothing to do with the text of what is at vote or the original resolution

Final analysis of your arguments:

Wasted air. Mindless flippancy. Nothing of any usefull substance at all. Reminiscent of Mutual Recognition of Borders. Oddly appropriate for one in opposition to this much needed repeal.

Go back and actually read the repeal arguments. Attempt to actually address them in your decision to vote for or against it. Do that, and maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere in these halls, might decide to take you more seriously than a fart in a car.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Rinsing The Master's thingies

Omigodtheykilledkenny

10-04-2007, 20:40

Sorry, Sammy, but I'm thinking you're trying to make a whole lot of nothing out of a whole lot of nothing. It further disappoints me that it took your four months to discover this "loophole" (especially since, working off your written record, your immediate repeal speed is a helluva lot shorter), which in turn doesn't support your case any more. I think I'm prepared to agree with the small minority on this one: this resolution prevents you from doing something you want to, and as such you want to get it out of the way. Sorry, no go.Thank you for your input, and welcome to the United Nations. Please stow your puerile rantings in the secure overhead containers. In the event of flooding, your carelessly spewed hot air acts as a floatation device; in case of fire, please note the emergency exits clearly marked "SHUT THE FUCK UP."

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Forgottenlands

10-04-2007, 21:11

Rubina

10-04-2007, 21:20

We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Rinsing The Master's thingiesSo, Ambassador Feldstein, are we to assume there is actually "proper legislation" on this topic in the pipeline? Or is this just another bait-and-switch move?

One would think you would learn to use the 'future legislation' argument for repeal only when there actually is future legislation in the offing.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 21:43

I am open for some evidence as to how it is actually harmful, but I have so far only read "it doesn't do anything" which should be attached to the words "if no one acts in the spirit of good faith". There are those that act in the spirit of good faith, and so this service CAN be effective.

If those nations truly do wish to act in good faith with each other and solve their disputes, then they do not need a powerless UN committee to help them with it. If what they truly wish is peace, then there are none better suited to figuring it out than they are. They are the ones most familiar with all of the different factors that are in play between the opposing sides.

So, Ambassador Feldstein, are we to assume there is actually "proper legislation" on this topic in the pipeline? Or is this just another bait-and-switch move?

One would think you would learn to use the 'future legislation' argument for repeal only when there actually is future legislation in the offing.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

Oh, isn't that cute? Amb Talone wishes to use ad hominem attacks against me to attack the repeal.

Here's the short response:

Not only did I not author this repeal, but I barely even looked at the drafting of it, let alone make any contributions of any kind towards its development. I may have popped out the occassional "I like it" to show my support for the author's efforts, but it was already in hands much more capable than my own, so I let them work out all the language all on their own.

Your attack on me is not only childish, but rather silly. The delegation from the nation that has authored this repeal publicly decried the tactics to which you are alluding. You are attaching your dim view of my integrity to the honourable Kennyite delegation.

If you would care to look to the text of the repeal, it makes absolutely no suggestion, promise, or innuendo towards a replacement. What it does do is state that "the worthy goal of containing the imperialist ambitions of corrupt powers and protecting the peoples of disputed territories from the catastrophic effects of resulting border wars" is not being assisted with this "wasteful bureaucracy and pointless lip-service".

My comments about this repeal or anything related to it are as one who supports the repeal, but had nothing to do with its creation.

If this is all of the argument that can be drummed up in opposition to this repeal, then this is going to be a very boring debate.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Laughing at the Confused

Cluichstan

10-04-2007, 21:43

Thank you for your input, and welcome to the United Nations. Please stow your puerile rantings in the secure overhead containers. In the event of flooding, your carelessly spewed hot air acts as a floatation device; in case of fire, please note the emergency exits clearly marked "SHUT THE FUCK UP."

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

OOC: Commander Chiang (http://typolis.net/static/monstamovies/images/sexy%20stewardess.jpg)? :D

Allech-Atreus

10-04-2007, 21:45

So, Ambassador Feldstein, are we to assume there is actually "proper legislation" on this topic in the pipeline? Or is this just another bait-and-switch move?

One would think you would learn to use the 'future legislation' argument for repeal only when there actually is future legislation in the offing.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

Hey Leetha, why don't you come up with a replacement? It can't be that hard- just whip up some words, a couple arguments, and mash it all together. Heck, it can't be any worse than what it'd be replacing!

Bait'n switch? I don't think so. No one I've talked to wants this thing replaced- it doesn't do anything important right now, so why not take it off the books? This is straightforward, like all repeals: it sucks, and we want it gone.

Honestly, you "waaaahreplacement" people confuse the bejeezus out of me. I suppose you want a replacement for "Fight the Axis of Evil" too!

Rang Erman
Advisor

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 21:52

And another thing!

I didn't see any member of the Rubina delegation either assisting with the public drafting of the replacement to which they refer, nor did I see their name in the Approval list when this replacement was Submitted.

You were aware that it was submitted, were you not? On schedule, as promised. It failed to reach quorum, and the matter was left for others better suited to dealing with it, as mine was not adequate to the needs of the UN.

My apologies, Mr Faisano. I will desist from the hijack.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Refilling The Master's Loins

Cluichstan

10-04-2007, 21:59

Rubina

10-04-2007, 22:00

Oh, isn't that cute? Amb Talone wishes to use ad hominem attacks against me to attack the repeal.

Here's the short response:

Not only did I not author this repeal, but I barely even looked at the drafting of it, let alone make any contributions of any kind towards its development. I may have popped out the occassional "I like it" to show my support for the author's efforts, but it was already in hands much more capable than my own, so I let them work out all the language all on their own.

Your attack on me is not only childish, but rather silly. The delegation from the nation that has authored this repeal publicly decried the tactics to which you are alluding. You are attaching your dim view of my integrity to the honourable Kennyite delegation.

If you would care to look to the text of the repeal, it makes absolutely no suggestion, promise, or innuendo towards a replacement. What it does do is state that "the worthy goal of containing the imperialist ambitions of corrupt powers and protecting the peoples of disputed territories from the catastrophic effects of resulting border wars" is not being assisted with this "wasteful bureaucracy and pointless lip-service".

My comments about this repeal or anything related to it are as one who supports the repeal, but had nothing to do with its creation.

If this is all of the argument that can be drummed up in opposition to this repeal, then this is going to be a very boring debate.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Laughing at the ConfusedAd hominem, Mr. Feldstein? Not at all. You, sir, were the one who interjected the idea of replacement legislation into discussion of the repeal. If I were Omigodtheykilledkenny, I'd be slapping you against the wall for your tactical faux pas.

Keep on laughing, Mr. Feldstein. It becomes entertaining after a fashion.

Hey Leetha, why don't you come up with a replacement? It can't be that hard- just whip up some words, a couple arguments, and mash it all together. Heck, it can't be any worse than what it'd be replacing!

Bait'n switch? I don't think so. No one I've talked to wants this thing replaced- it doesn't do anything important right now, so why not take it off the books? This is straightforward, like all repeals: it sucks, and we want it gone.

Honestly, you "waaaahreplacement" people confuse the bejeezus out of me. I suppose you want a replacement for "Fight the Axis of Evil" too!

Rang Erman
AdvisorWe are quite happy with the current version, see no reason to either repeal or replace it, and made no such suggestion. Learn to read before knee-jerking, Mr. Erman.

Noting the defensiveness with interest,
Amb. Talone

Rubina

10-04-2007, 22:06

No future legislation on this matter would be "proper." We don't need to replace every piece of shit that's repealed, y'know.

"Oh, look! A turd! I'd better pick it up, but if I'm gonna do that, I'd better crap out a better turd!"

Sorry, but a turd is still a turd.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UNAnd are you the assembly's expert in the turd department, my good Sheik?

As we pointed out to Rang Erman, we weren't the ones who initiated discussion of a replacement, nor have any interest in a replacement. However, using future legislation as an argument for a repeal when no future legislation is planned is disingenuous at best.

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 22:10

Ad hominem, Mr. Feldstein? Not at all. You, sir, were the one who interjected the idea of replacement legislation into discussion of the repeal.

Incorrect. What I said was this.

We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area.

To which I will add the good Sheik's comments

No future legislation on this matter would be "proper." We don't need to replace every piece of shit that's repealed, y'know.

If I were Omigodtheykilledkenny, I'd be slapping you against the wall for your tactical faux pas.

If you were Kenny, we'd still have unnecessary tripe like Gay Rights on the books. Somehow, I have serious doubts that he'll take very kind to having others assume anything about his preferred actions. But, not being him, I couldn't say for sure.

Keep on laughing, Mr. Feldstein. It becomes entertaining after a fashion.

What I find entertaining is that you still have not actually addressed the content of the repeal itself. You seem to be working under the impression that I am the object of discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm flattered that you seem to be obsessed with me, and I can understand why. I am, after all, an incredibly sexy ambassador. But really, Ambassador Talone, we are here to debate actual issues. There's a sign up list in my office for those who wish to audition to be my stalker for the next few months though. Perhaps you'll be more successful in staying on target in that capacity.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Just Monkeying Around

Damanucus

10-04-2007, 22:14

Okay, all claims aside. Let's look at this matter in this way:

Under Resolution 190, if anyone had a dispute about their borders, they would immediately refer to the Committee to have this resolved. Now, under this, the worst case scenario would be that the borders would be indefinitely locked up in dispute, if what the Ambassador for Ohmigodtheykilledkenny says is correct (I will assume for this case he is).

Now, remove the law. Okay, some countires will work it out between them where there borders are; that's not that big a change. However, some willl start a war on them, Some will be quick and bloody, others, unfortunately, not so quick (but still bloody). However, in this case, the worst-case scenario is not, in fact, indefinite war on a border; it would be invasion, pure and simple, which would anger evveryone from the tyranical to the democratic. I can give a reason for each as to why invasion would be a bad idea, but the list is tooo long, and I don't know alll government types.

But, looking at each case, the worst-case scenario while the resolution is in place is certainly a lot better than many of the case-scenarios provided by the non-existence of the law. My problem is not with the resolution; it's with the "loophole", which seems what can be considered as simply wasting time and resources, and not a true loophole per se (which circumvents the enforced law entirely). Yes, the systemm has its flaw(s), but it's certainly a lot better than the alternative.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 22:15

As we pointed out to Rang Erman, we weren't the ones who initiated discussion of a replacement,

Yes, you were. Nobody used the word replacement until you brought it up. You seemed to read what you wanted to see into comments made by those around you, then proceeded to completely ignore reality in pursuit of those angles.

Just about anybody here that pays any attention at all is going to see you for the conspiracy theorist that you are. Have fun with that.

Love and esterel

10-04-2007, 22:17

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 22:23

Okay, all claims aside. Let's look at this matter in this way:

Under Resolution 190, if anyone had a dispute about their borders, they would immediately refer to the Committee to have this resolved.

Right here is your fundamental flaw. They don't immediately refer to anyone. They can, should both sides choose to, refer to this committee for suggetions towards mediation.

Now, under this, the worst case scenario would be that the borders would be indefinitely locked up in dispute,

Worst case is that one side refuses to acknowledge megiation suggestions and presses on with a full invasion.

Now, remove the law. Okay, some countires will work it out between them where there borders are; that's not that big a change.

Yep. The ones that want peace will get it anyways. The rest will proceed as they already are with this law in place. The bill accomplishes absolutely nothing. It sits there as an insult to any effort to rectify the situation.

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 22:42

[Georges Shallmar the Minister of Economy and Trade of Love and esterel entered this hall for the first time. He asked to speak and then after a while, it was up to him.]

Dear UN Representatives,

I would like to illustrate my views on this matter by two examples from a virtual world called “The Earth”, and this, in order to not upset anyone in this assembly.

Last year the virtual nation of China recognized one of its borders with another one called India. Few weeks later these 2 nations opened a crossing point between them, the first one since 4 decades, and trade begin to flourish.

In the 80’s, in this same virtual world, 2 nations were engaged in a bloody war over 8 years. This war was internally justified by a claim over some few square kilometres cosmopolite territories.

These 2 examples among many show how borders disputes are important for peace and global trade and economy.

They don't demonstrate any such thing. In the first scenario two nations who weren't at war with each other decided to be friends. Good for them. In the other, two nations are at war because they haven't reached an agreement about their shared territory.

MRB does nothing to further the first, nor does it do anythingto put an end to the second.

In the first scenario, the nations might not be as friendly, because this recognition is being forced upon them. In the second, if one of the nations does not wish mediation, war will continue until one side is dead.

Borders disputes are so many time the easy argument for governments to engage in a sterile war instead of concentrating effort on economy, international relationship and trade.

1) That has nothing to do with anything that will help your case. You're spouting about the motivations of national leaders who prefer war over peace. The very ones who make MRB useless.

2) Historically, war creates a temporary boost in economy as industrial sectors find demand skyrocketting.

It’s why this proposal this proposal really helps to increase international relationship and trade, by strongly encouraging:

-Peaceful borders disputes resolution

Repeating previous statements, if the two nations wish to be peaceful and trade with each other, they will do so, they don't need the UN to do it for them.

-Border crossing points to be established

Again, they can accomplish this on their own.

and by proposing a professional structure to nations desiring the help of a neutral third party.

If the opposing nations wish assistance in mediation, they are fully capable of going out to get it without UN interference in their choices on the matter.

Yes, nothing is enforced as solutions related to these disputes will last longer if agreed by parties.

If the parties are willing to agree on these matters in the first place, then they can manage to work out the details on their own, without UN interference.

This repeal states: “Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them; » we think the same here and it’s why this proposal was written with full respect of national sovereignty.

We are really open to vote for better ways which can works better than this resolution in relation to this important topic, but this repeal fail to introduce any constructive criticism.

Your previous statement runs nearly opposite to this statement. To be truly respectful of National Sovereignty, don't legislate on it. If you wish to actually accomplish something by legislating in this area, then do it. Don't dilly dally around with suggestions and recommendations about being nice to each other. Telling people with guns pointed at each other's heads to play nice will get you nowhere 9 times out of 10.

As the minister of economy of a member of this assembly, I would like to conclude my speech by saying that “"Mutual Recognition of Borders" is also a useful pro-economy resolution.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even read the resolution you wrote?

You know what? Nevermind. You didn't listen to any of these comments as MRB was being drafted or in the voting debate. I'm not going to expect you to actually take the time to realize that Disco had a better chance of drafting good Intellectual Property law than of this bill doing what it should.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Getting The Master's Dinner

Forgottenlands

10-04-2007, 22:46

If those nations truly do wish to act in good faith with each other and solve their disputes, then they do not need a powerless UN committee to help them with it. If what they truly wish is peace, then there are none better suited to figuring it out than they are. They are the ones most familiar with all of the different factors that are in play between the opposing sides.

Try again. There is a reason why it HAS BEEN USED and HAS BEEN NEEDED in the past - in RL. There is a reason why people call Arbitrators to settle contract talks, why they'll have mediators help with settlements, and why people will go to various other groups such as courts to assist in settling their disputes: they want a resolution, but they're too proud to give up something so they get other people help them deem what's fair.

For National Leaders, giving up a territory willingly as part of an agreement makes you look weak. If you give up a territory because an International Body says "it does not belong to you" is often seen as better. Sure, there are some nations that welcome the weak, just as there are some (ok: many) who reward those that flaunt their ass at an International body. That doesn't mean that such arbitrators can't HELP on MANY cases. It doesn't mean that we can't find resolutions to problems.

You naysayers listen: THIS IS A TRIED AND TESTED SYSTEM IN REAL LIFE under REAL CONDITIONS with REAL PEOPLE. Yes, the NS Universe is slightly different, but my point is that this is a system that will work for many cases - and the majority of cases still, however much we don't like to admit it - follow real life scenarios. YES there will be times it won't work, YES it isn't perfect. However, it does work, it is effective, it is useful, and that means this resolution doesn't need to be repealed. The fact that it provides a useful service is the reason it deserves to stay on the books.

So going back to the arguments:
1) The system is useless:
-No it isn't. Real life has proven that this system has been useful
2) Nations can just start disputing borders to make them not recognized
-If they don't believe that's the right border in the first place, it isn't undisputed by definition - right? Bullox
3) The committee doesn't need to be listened to
-Yes, but we forget that there are many nations that listen to the UN in good faith even if they:
A) Aren't a part of the UN
B) Know they can abuse loopholes to get around it

Just because many of you have spent a large portion of your time in the UN arrogantly proclaiming that you can violate the essence of every UN resolution ever written and happily spend your time finding loopholes doesn't mean everyone does. This is a committee for those that do listen to the UN in Good faith
4) This committee is a waste of resources
-Dealt with in 1, but to summarize - no it's not
5) The issue can be dealt with better at a local level
-Sometimes you need someone who isn't from the local area to help. I'd like us to consider Israel and Palestine - I'll be damned if the Israelis would trust any of their other neighbors to settle the dispute for them. An International Mediator would be more balanced for them (mind you, they still don't listen but that's beside the point). The UN is the closest thing available to a neutral body that is available. Add on that inter-regional disputes and even intra-regional disputes in very loosely or poorly organized regions wouldn't be easily settled at a "local level"
6) This doesn't stop wars
-It does. Dealt with in 1. Does it stop all? No. But International Security is about improving our chances of averting war - so even if one war is stopped, it is a valid claim. As I've state, this system has proven IRL to prevent wars and to end border disputes.

Rubina

10-04-2007, 22:54

To which I will add the good Sheik's comments, [No future legislation on this matter would be "proper." We don't need to replace every piece of shit that's repealed, y'know.]You seem to have jumped to an errant conclusion. I agree with the Sheik on the matter of replacements in general.

If you were Kenny, we'd still have unnecessary tripe like Gay Rights on the books. Somehow, I have serious doubts that he'll take very kind to having others assume anything about his preferred actions. But, not being him, I couldn't say for sure.You seem to be having comprehension problems today. "If I were" indicates what the speaker would do in another's shoes, not what one would presume that person would do. As you say, what OMGTKK would do is a mystery.

... Nobody used the word replacement until you brought it up. You seemed to read what you wanted to see into comments made by those around you, then proceeded to completely ignore reality in pursuit of those angles.

Just about anybody here that pays any attention at all is going to see you for the conspiracy theorist that you are. Have fun with that.Use the word? Surely one can express an idea with more than a single phrasing? I quote you with emphasis:We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area. You can dither all you want but such is indeed another way of referring to a replacement. And none, including the author of the repeal had done so until you brought it up. And as I have said before I have no interest in a replacement for MRB, the original's quite fine, thanks.

As for the repeal argument, it's a mishmash of whining that can't seem to decide whether MRB effectively supercedes national perogative ("Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them") or is totally ineffective. It misrepresents the charge to the committee in the original MRB and distorts the nature of UN committees themselves, insinuating that the committee sits around drinking tea with nothing to do, when this assembly is quite aware that committees spring from the ether when needed. The repeal's concern about imperialism and colonialism is misplaced, as well--nothing in MRB prevents a resolution addressing those problems. En toto, it appears the Kennyites got their knickers in a twist when MRB passed and can't let it go.

--L.T.

Kivisto

10-04-2007, 23:14

snipped for brevity.

OOC: Dammit man, I'm on a series of perfectly good, extremist sounding tirades and you have to go and interject logic into the whole thing. I'll try to come up with some form of IC refutation of your post a little later on, when I've had the chance to make something up ;)

You seem to have jumped to an errant conclusion. I agree with the Sheik on the matter of replacements in general.

His statement is that proper legislation is none at all. We're not talking about replacements here. Just you are.

Use the word? Surely one can express an idea with more than a single phrasing? I quote you with emphasis:

And I will refer you back to the previously quoted section about what would constitute proper legislation.

You can dither all you want but such is indeed another way of referring to a replacement.

Should you choose to read my comments that way and believe that you can read my mind, then you would be misreading my intent, and believing what you wish to believe instead of actually hearing what we are saying to you.

And none, including the author of the repeal had done so until you brought it up.

I have already made my statement to agree with the good Sheik about what I believe to be proper legislation in this area. A replacement is not on that list.

And as I have said before I have no interest in a replacement for MRB, the original's quite fine, thanks.

We disagree with the part about the original, but agree on a lack of interest in a replacement.

As for the repeal argument, [quote]

Sweet Jesus! You're actually going to address the matter at vote?!? I think I may just have a heart attack.

[quote]it's a mishmash of whining that can't seem to decide whether MRB effectively supercedes national perogative ("Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them")or is totally ineffective.

It manages to do both. That is attempt to address an inherently local problem supercedes the perogative of the nations involved. That it completely fails to do so renders it completely ineffective. It's a multitalented failure.

It misrepresents the charge to the committee in the original MRB

How so? It says very little about the committee, other than to delineate how their purpose was never fully delineated.

and distorts the nature of UN committees themselves,

Again, how so? It doesn't address the general nature of UN committees at all. It states that this one is wasteful and superfluous, but that's it.

insinuating that the committee sits around drinking tea with nothing to do, when this assembly is quite aware that committees spring from the ether when needed.

Not only is this statement rather inaccurate (from an IC standpoint), but it really has nothing to do with anything.

The repeal's concern about imperialism and colonialism is misplaced, as well--nothing in MRB prevents a resolution addressing those problems.

You claim that there is room for another resolution to enforce Imperialist nations to Recognize the Borders they Mutually share with other nations? Really? Have fun with that.

En toto, it appears the Kennyites got their knickers in a twist when MRB passed and can't let it go.

I can't speak for Mr Faisano, but many of us do not wish to have our intelligences insulted by letting such garbage remain where we must deal with it.

The Arkbird

10-04-2007, 23:21

Ahem.

MRB does nothing. It is a waste of time and bureaucratic effort.

It can be completely circumvented. Nations can go around everything in the document. From the mediators, to the state of borders.

However, I do agree with the hints of a better replacement. A more iron locked agreement is what's needed. A document that, for lack of a better description states. "Okay you see that undisputed border of yours? That's your border. Your nation cannot grow beyond that without sufficient reason. However, if there is land not claimed by any entity, you can occupy it."

And yes, I did just make that up. If you agree to the repealment, then I shall improve it.

Now, isn't the promise of a replacement enough for you to repeal the MRB?

Andrew Anderson
Ad-interim President of the Holy Republic of The Arkbird
Wondering why the hell the President is acting as a UN ambassador.

Intangelon

10-04-2007, 23:47

We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area.

Should you choose to read my comments that way and believe that you can read my mind, then you would be misreading my intent, and believing what you wish to believe instead of actually hearing what we are saying to you.

Point of order then, Ambassador Feldstein, but would you be so kind as to inform those of use on the fence about this repeal exactly what you did mean when you said the former of those two statements?

It is not an unreasonable leap to get "replacement" out of "impedes proper legislation". Perhaps if you gave some examples of "proper legislation" instead of repeatedly italicizing the term, speaking an in unreasonably defensive and belligerent manner and histrionically yelling about heart attacks and whatnot, some in this assembly might be persuaded to side with you.

My first instinct was to vote AGAINST this repeal, and so my vote stands until I read something of value which does not presume ignorance, "fluffiness" or some other imagined deficiency on the part of the opposition.

The FOR side makes a good point about thrid-party arbitration being available without a UN committee's involvement. However, I would venture to imagine that such privately-sought arbitration would cost the nations involved far more than a UN-brokered arbitration.

OF COURSE the nations involved in a border dispute know the most about the area -- but they also have vested interests in the dispute coming out in their favor as much as possible, which makes the OPTION of a UN arbitration necessary. A parallel might be anything from pubic versus private education, government versus corporate research, and other examples of options in services of all kinds. Some can afford the most expensive private companies' services, while most cannot. The same goes for nations -- as a result, the choice for nations to avoid the UN committee is not a loophole, it's an option.

MRB allows those nations who are either unwilling or unable to go with private thritd-party arbitration (and let us not forget that private arbitration might not be subject to oversight or regulation) a way to resolve their disputed borders without warfare. Giving nations a choice is certainly not "nothing".

Bosnaeum

11-04-2007, 00:00

Quit a difficult proposal we have this week for the UN. A great dilemma.

Border issues have always been a problem throughout history, and slashing overall global military spending can diminish future casualties in any sort of war, regardless. Resolution #190 has taken off, but probably not to a desirable extent. Repealing the resolution wouln't fix the problem, therefore Bosnaeum argues against.

-Bosnaeum's President.

NLFirst

11-04-2007, 00:50

You must be planning to invade IDU. Stop attacking IDU! I'm warning you, you filthy, worthless liar. You are obviously an evil rightist, implementing your malicious plan to destroy IDU.

We are certainly in support of the repeal of this incredibly useless resolution.

Well, I dunno about you, but if the original Resolution we're now repelling was too many bureaucracy for nothing, we ought to repell it and replace it with a better one!

I've already voted for this Repellment along with my Regional Rep. Quixxota!

Kivisto

11-04-2007, 00:52

Point of order then, Ambassador Feldstein, but would you be so kind as to inform those of use on the fence about this repeal exactly what you did mean when you said the former of those two statements?

Such clarification has been made more than once already. Recently. Within the last 10 comments.

It is not an unreasonable leap to get "replacement" out of "impedes proper legislation".

I accept that. I also accept and assert that those capable of reading that should be capable of reading the clarifications that were offered. Repeatedly. As in more than once. Like, the horse is dead already, put down the stick.

Perhaps if you gave some examples of "proper legislation" instead of repeatedly italicizing the term,

I have no recollection of even once italicizing the word replacement. Amb Talone bolded my statements for emphasis, but I did not even use the word until it was mentioned by someone else, and that was to say that I am not, nor am I likely to, seek out, create, or support a replacement.

As for an example, as has already been clarified previously (by more than one person), try this on for size:

-

There. That meets the requirements that I set out and clarified.

speaking an in unreasonably defensive

Defensive? What are you on about?

and belligerent manner

In case you have undergone some form of mental trauma and have forgotten most of the last year, I am belligerent. This is the way I am. You are unlikely to alter that by pointing it out. Again.

and histrionically yelling about heart attacks and whatnot,

Who's yelling? I was just surprised that the good Rubinan Ambassador finally decided to address the repeal itself instead of attacking me.

some in this assembly might be persuaded to side with you.

I'm not the one they should be concerned with. Should they take the time to read the arguments of the repeal, they will find themselves drawn to voting for it all on their own.

My first instinct was to vote AGAINST this repeal, and so my vote stands until I read something of value which does not presume ignorance,

By definition, it is the lack of knowledge. Should the opposition take the time to acquaint themselves with what is actually being voted on and demonstrate such knowledge, they will not find themselves being accused of ignorance.

"fluffiness"

Who mentioned fluffiness. Have you even paid attention to the debate, or are you just assuming that certain remarks will be made and going with your instincts again.

or some other imagined deficiency on the part of the opposition.

Which imagined deficiency are we referring to, this time. Almost every single comment made by the opposition has been an attack on myself instead of directing their attention to the text of the repeal. That isn't a deficiency so much as bad aim.

The vocal opposition seems to be getting carried by the Forgottenlands delegation. She is the only one who actually seems concerned with addressing the arguments of the repeal compared to the text of the original. And she has made some points that could prove valuable to the rest of the opposition if they could manage to pry their eyes from my well formed derriere long enough to realize that there is something at vote that doesn't involve my antics.

However, since you do have some comments about the repeal (Thank Heavens), we can move on to discuss those with my thanks that you are willing to do so.

The FOR side makes a good point about thrid-party arbitration being available without a UN committee's involvement. However, I would venture to imagine that such privately-sought arbitration would cost the nations involved far more than a UN-brokered arbitration.

It is true that such privately sought mediation may come at a cost, but it will be entered into by participants willing to see peace, and it is available without a UN Commission. These willing nations could use the current UN committee at this time, but the point is that such a committee is not needed.

OF COURSE the nations involved in a border dispute know the most about the area -- but they also have vested interests in the dispute coming out in their favor as much as possible, which makes the OPTION of a UN arbitration necessary.

But why does it need to be a UN arbitration? Why couldn't it be any other third party group? Ms MacDougall made the point about using the size of the UN international community as a method for these national leaders to compromise without losing face, but if their dignity is that much of an issue for them that they need to have a big imposing beast tell them how to make peace, then they will be unwilling to do so otherwise, and they will scarce be intimidated by this powerless commission that bears no authority to even threaten trade sanctions if there is no attempt at peace.

A parallel might be anything from pubic versus private education, government versus corporate research, and other examples of options in services of all kinds. Some can afford the most expensive private companies' services, while most cannot. The same goes for nations -- as a result, the choice for nations to avoid the UN committee is not a loophole, it's an option.

While I can see where you are drawing the parallel from, I don't see that it is necessarily very apt. With schools and research groups, we're talking about single individuals, or small groups of individuals paying to cover the costs of large organizations. With mediation of border disputes, we're talking about a government (probably two and possibly more) paying to cover the costs of a single individual or small group of individuals. Keeping in mind that these are national governments that are capable of financing war-like military operations, along with the incredible financial costs of war to the government, I don't really buy cost as being a large factor in this.

MRB allows those nations who are either unwilling or unable to go with private thritd-party arbitration

The UN committee would be third party arbitration. If they are unwilling to go with it, then they won't. MRB doesn't change that. If they are unable....I don't really see how they could be unable unless the other side does not wish arbitration, in which case, MRB won't help.

(and let us not forget that private arbitration might not be subject to oversight or regulation)

There is no stipulation about oversight or regulation for CMRoB within MRB, either.

a way to resolve their disputed borders without warfare.

I hold to my position that, if they wish to resolve their conflict without warfare, they are fully capable of doing so, without UN involvement.

Giving nations a choice is certainly not "nothing".

Telling the eagles that they can fly isn't really doing nothing either, in the strictest sense of the word, but it certainly doesn't accomplish a damned thing other than hearing yourself speak and making people think that you're crazy.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Reimbursing The Master's Laundromat for the Damage

Retired WerePenguins

11-04-2007, 00:56

Velvendo

11-04-2007, 00:57

On one hand this is good legislation....on the other hand who does this benefit?....on the other hand....on the other hand.....ah tradition....where is Chaim Topol (Tevye) when you need him?! Sorry, but Velvendo will make its decision shortly.

Sincerely,
Gilbert N. Sullivan

Uranus Territory

11-04-2007, 02:29

I'm shocked.
We are already up to page 3 and no one has mentioned the multiverse!
OK, I just mentioned the multiverse! :p
Think of the multiverse!
My god man the multiverse!
What would we ever do without it. :D

At the risk of being off-topic, without the multiverse, there couldn't be multiple variants of Uranus! That would be a disaster! :D :D :D

Rubina

11-04-2007, 02:30

You, Amb. Feldstein, seem to have gotten yourself so twisted around to make things seem as you wish that you might as well kiss your derriere, while you're there. There was a reason I qualified my agreement with the sheik; obviously we disagree on this particular case. And you can italicize "proper" all you want; if legislation is put forward on this topic (whether you deem it proper or not), it would be a replacement by definition, as MRB would have preceded it historically. Nor can you argue that a resolution should be repealed in order to make way for "proper legislation" (I notice you didn't italicize it originally) and then argue that the only proper legislation is none. Well, you can, but it's not very logical of you, nor does it reflect well on you.
Sweet Jesus! You're actually going to address the matter at vote?!? I think I may just have a heart attack.We wouldn't wish you ill on the Assembly floor; it's our understanding that medical care here is quite medieval.Again, how so? It doesn't address the general nature of UN committees at all. It states that this one is wasteful and superfluous, but that's it.And yet, knowing the true nature of UN committees, how can any particular one be wasteful and superfluous when it only exists when needed? Even without considering its true nature, the MRB's committee is hardly wasteful as its value has been demonstrated in my home region, not to mention the examples found in that mythical place called Real World. All rather illogical of the Kennyites, and as such, one less reason to vote for the repeal.
You claim that there is room for another resolution to enforce Imperialist nations to Recognize the Borders they Mutually share with other nations? Really? Have fun with that.You seem to forget, I'm not the one complaining that the MRB doesn't accomplish such a goal nor implying that it prevents other efforts to do so.
I can't speak for Mr Faisano, but many of us do not wish to have our intelligences insulted by letting such garbage remain where we must deal with it.So easily insulted? Perhaps a vacation would do you good, Amb. Feldstein. I can highly recommend the Great Marshes of Rubina; they're quite lovely this time of year.

--L.T.

Transcendant Pilgrims

11-04-2007, 02:51

While 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' may not be perfect, It's about the best resolution we could expect on this issue.

It offers neutral third party mediation of territorial disputes if the participants are willing to seek peace through means other than war.

This committee should belong to the UN, as the UN holds itself to a higher standard than rogue nations are required to. The UN must speak in the best interests of all nations under it's banner, and as such would be less likely to be biased for or against the nations having the dispute.

Any more forceful, and this resolution would basically render itself Illegal due to the fact that it would interfere with NS dynamics.

You cannot ban territorial disputes, or force mediation. As the only nations capable of committing armies to these disputes are UN nations. Invasions cannot be stopped as they are a part of the NS universe.

What MRoB does, is offer an official starting point and solution for those nations seeking an end to territorial disputes,and it does so quite effectively.

Transcendant Pilgrims votes against this repeal.

Signed,
The Immortal Keeper of the Divine Wisdom, Grand Admiral of the Transcendant Templar Army, United Nations Delegate for The Exodus, Arch-Ponderer Michael of the Collective Consciousness of Transcendant Pilgrims.

Allech-Atreus

11-04-2007, 02:55

You, Amb. Feldstein, seem to have gotten yourself so twisted around to make things seem as you wish that you might as well kiss your derriere, while you're there.

More ad hominems, now, Leetha? I'd say that Oskar has been most courteous and calm while trying to muddle through the very confusing arguments put forth by the opposition.

There was a reason I qualified my agreement with the sheik; obviously we disagree on this particular case. And you can italicize "proper" all you want; if legislation is put forward on this topic (whether you deem it proper or not), it would be a replacement by definition, as MRB would have preceded it historically.

Yes, that would be the definition of the word "replacement." Now, do you have anything to add to the debate or do you wish to continue on this tangent of dithering about a replacement when the repeal hasn't even passed?

Nor can you argue that a resolution should be repealed in order to make way for "proper legislation" (I notice you didn't italicize it originally) and then argue that the only proper legislation is none. Well, you can, but it's not very logical of you, nor does it reflect well on you.

Really, Leetha, do you have anything better to do than chitter about what words the Kivistan ambassador used? Oskar has already stated that he doesn't want a replacement, that he isn't working on a replacement, that he knows of no replacement, and that he has no idea why you think he has. Isn't that enough, or do you harbor some sort of grudge of which I am unawares?

We wouldn't wish you ill on the Assembly floor; it's our understanding that medical care here is quite medieval.

Don't let the Building Management hear that.

And yet, knowing the true nature of UN committees, how can any particular one be wasteful and superfluous when it only exists when needed? Even without considering its true nature, the MRB's committee is hardly wasteful as its value has been demonstrated in my home region, not to mention the examples found in that mythical place called Real World. All rather illogical of the Kennyites, and as such, one less reason to vote for the repeal.

What is the point of having a committee that solves border disputes if it's not something mandatory? If it only exists when the parties are willing to arbitrate, then what's the fucking point?

And honestly, what kind of an example is your home region? Your example highlights the problems with the resolution- it only works when the parties involved are willing, and that's pointless. What's the point of having a pen that only works when you really need to write something?

So easily insulted? Perhaps a vacation would do you good, Amb. Feldstein. I can highly recommend the Great Marshes of Rubina; they're quite lovely this time of year.

--L.T.

Coyness doesn't become you, Leetha. It'd be much more intelligent to use logic and reason than blindly spew sarcasm.

Rang Erman
Advisor

Mikitivity

11-04-2007, 03:00

For National Leaders, giving up a territory willingly as part of an agreement makes you look weak. If you give up a territory because an International Body says "it does not belong to you" is often seen as better. Sure, there are some nations that welcome the weak, just as there are some (ok: many) who reward those that flaunt their ass at an International body. That doesn't mean that such arbitrators can't HELP on MANY cases. It doesn't mean that we can't find resolutions to problems.

These are all wonderful arguments and my government feels these are the reasons the resolution was adopted in the first place. We will be encouraging nations that hold my government's opinion with any respect to consider voting against these repeal.

Mikitivity

11-04-2007, 03:09

I'm shocked.
We are already up to page 3 and no one has mentioned the multiverse!
OK, I just mentioned the multiverse! :p
Think of the multiverse!
My god man the multiverse!
What would we ever do without it. :D

The multiverse actually was discussed during the original draft proposal debates and was used as an argument in FAVOR of the original resolution. The digest version goes like this:

Opponents: "OMG, like what would happen if two nations claim to be on the same spot and can't come to an agreement! Like OMG! OMG OMG OMG!"

Smart People: "Easy there girl. In NationStates history and geography can (and frequently) be rewritten overnight thanks to our multiverse theory. So in the unlikely event two nations are having God complexes and wish to occupy the same space and will NEVER agree to any arbitration POOF we just explain it away as being a multiverse ... you have yours, I have mine, never shall we speak again."

Opponents: "Like OMG! Doesn't like this mean that this resolution is then pointless???? Like I don't know!"

Smart People: "All resolutions have exceptions ... in this case, the majority of us will benefit from the resolution, and even those that don't tend to already play multiverse cards as if they are going out of style -- speaking of which, could you please lay off the 'OMG'!"

Transcendant Pilgrims

11-04-2007, 03:15

What is the point of having a committee that solves border disputes if it's not something mandatory? If it only exists when the parties are willing to arbitrate, then what's the fucking point?

The point honorable advisor, is that mediation can only occur when both sides deem it necessary. Parties involved may still have some disagreement, but wish to see an end to pointless bloodshed on both sides. At this point they would seek the aid of MRoB's committee.

It's rather difficult to mediate when mortars and artillery shells are exploding around you. Perhaps one reason why it wasn't made mandatory.

Schwarzchild

11-04-2007, 06:20

Gi' me more of that Ol' Janx Spirit!

Abstain.

<drinks a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster and passes out>

UN Building Mgmt

11-04-2007, 07:31

We wouldn't wish you ill on the Assembly floor; it's our understanding that medical care here is quite medieval.

You obviously haven't visited the hospital up on the 12th floor. It's got the best staff and equipment available and is capable with dealing with pretty much every species represented in the UN.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Yelda

11-04-2007, 07:53

The People's Democratic Republic Of Yelda would like to clarify our vote in the poll. It appears that we have inadvertently voted "This resolution hasn't prevented a single invasion of Chechnya! Repeal it!". The option we intended to select was "See you in HELL, dinnerplate!". We apologize for any confusion and return you to your debate, already in progress.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Ausserland

11-04-2007, 08:33

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal.

NSUNR #190 is a fundamentally useless piece of legislation.

It requires nations to recognize their undisputed borders. Now, if the borders are undisputed, it means they're already recognized by the parties involved. This provision makes about as much sense as a law requiring people to breathe.

Then it establishes a committee. The committee is supposed to help nations "clarify" their borders. We don't know what that's supposed to mean exactly, but it certainly seems like something nations could very well do for themselves. And it's supposed to help nations "seek third-party mediation". There are over 25,000 nations in the NSUN, almost two thousand regions, and a number of international organizations. Surely nations who wish to find mediators could do that themselves.

Then it does some applauding and urging. Fine. But we think the matter of national territory is something so basic to the existence of nations that not a lot of them will pay much attention to the NSUN's toothless urging, and will likely yawn at its applause.

And finally, we have the meaningless drivel about a multiverse.

The sum total effect of this resolution is to establish yet another committee to perform needless functions.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Neo-Gaea-Terra

11-04-2007, 12:57

I represent the people of the Dominion of Neo-Gaea-Terra. So when I say I am FOR the repeal, that means the people of the Dominion of Neo-Gaea-Terra are FOR the repeal. We believe that the resolution being voted on to be repealed is inefficient but should at least be replaced by a more effective resolution.

Gregor Marcus Drake
Viceroy of Neo-Gaea-Terra

Cluichstan

11-04-2007, 16:02

OOC: I'm trying real hard to find ANY justification for this repeal. I've tried NatSov, IntFed, AUC, etc, etc, etc and the fact of the matter is, I can't.

The United Nations, in the real world, effectively has about as much power and authority as the CMRoB. All one has to do is dispute the borders and the slate is cleared and they have to start afresh. No one has to follow the final decision of the UN. The list of things they can do with it is endless and it MATCHES CMRoB pretty nicely.

Equally worth noting is that this system has worked. It has resolved border disputes, it has brought about peaceful resolutions, and its provided a mechanism for mediation. Is it 100% effective? No. However, if we mandated anything else, all of a sudden you'd have wars because people disliked the mandate they were given, or drop out of the UN to start a war then rejoin.

The fact of the matter is that this is a service that could be useful for nations - in good intentions - to negotiate a peaceful solution to border disputes. This is a service that should be available at some level - and having it within the largest International Body makes sense.

It is also worth noting that even industrialized allies like the United States and Canada have had border disputes - I'm not sure if they've utilized these kinds of services in the past. I know Mali had a border dispute with one of its neighbors and the UN was able to bring a peaceful resolution to that.

Until I see someone come up with a better idea, this resolution provides a good service and I see little reason to repeal it. I am open for some evidence as to how it is actually harmful, but I have so far only read "it doesn't do anything" which should be attached to the words "if no one acts in the spirit of good faith". There are those that act in the spirit of good faith, and so this service CAN be effective.

Try again. There is a reason why it HAS BEEN USED and HAS BEEN NEEDED in the past - in RL. There is a reason why people call Arbitrators to settle contract talks, why they'll have mediators help with settlements, and why people will go to various other groups such as courts to assist in settling their disputes: they want a resolution, but they're too proud to give up something so they get other people help them deem what's fair.

For National Leaders, giving up a territory willingly as part of an agreement makes you look weak. If you give up a territory because an International Body says "it does not belong to you" is often seen as better. Sure, there are some nations that welcome the weak, just as there are some (ok: many) who reward those that flaunt their ass at an International body. That doesn't mean that such arbitrators can't HELP on MANY cases. It doesn't mean that we can't find resolutions to problems.

You naysayers listen: THIS IS A TRIED AND TESTED SYSTEM IN REAL LIFE under REAL CONDITIONS with REAL PEOPLE. Yes, the NS Universe is slightly different, but my point is that this is a system that will work for many cases - and the majority of cases still, however much we don't like to admit it - follow real life scenarios. YES there will be times it won't work, YES it isn't perfect. However, it does work, it is effective, it is useful, and that means this resolution doesn't need to be repealed. The fact that it provides a useful service is the reason it deserves to stay on the books.

So going back to the arguments:
1) The system is useless:
-No it isn't. Real life has proven that this system has been useful
2) Nations can just start disputing borders to make them not recognized
-If they don't believe that's the right border in the first place, it isn't undisputed by definition - right? Bullox
3) The committee doesn't need to be listened to
-Yes, but we forget that there are many nations that listen to the UN in good faith even if they:
A) Aren't a part of the UN
B) Know they can abuse loopholes to get around it

Just because many of you have spent a large portion of your time in the UN arrogantly proclaiming that you can violate the essence of every UN resolution ever written and happily spend your time finding loopholes doesn't mean everyone does. This is a committee for those that do listen to the UN in Good faith
4) This committee is a waste of resources
-Dealt with in 1, but to summarize - no it's not
5) The issue can be dealt with better at a local level
-Sometimes you need someone who isn't from the local area to help. I'd like us to consider Israel and Palestine - I'll be damned if the Israelis would trust any of their other neighbors to settle the dispute for them. An International Mediator would be more balanced for them (mind you, they still don't listen but that's beside the point). The UN is the closest thing available to a neutral body that is available. Add on that inter-regional disputes and even intra-regional disputes in very loosely or poorly organized regions wouldn't be easily settled at a "local level"
6) This doesn't stop wars
-It does. Dealt with in 1. Does it stop all? No. But International Security is about improving our chances of averting war - so even if one war is stopped, it is a valid claim. As I've state, this system has proven IRL to prevent wars and to end border disputes.

OOC (see, I know how to differentiate): First, if you're going to present arguments OOC, you might want to stop using an IC tag as your sig.

Secondly, well, shit...RL =/= NS. Your OOC/RL "arguments" are moot, as they don't apply to NS, no matter how verbose they are. Try again.

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 16:28

OOC (see, I know how to differentiate): First, if you're going to present arguments OOC, you might want to stop using an IC tag as your sig.

OOC: Or I just indicate when I'm going to be going OOC.

Secondly, well, shit...RL =/= NS. Your OOC/RL "arguments" are moot, as they don't apply to NS, no matter how verbose they are. Try again.

You may know how to differentiate, but you do need to learn to read

You naysayers listen: THIS IS A TRIED AND TESTED SYSTEM IN REAL LIFE under REAL CONDITIONS with REAL PEOPLE. Yes, the NS Universe is slightly different, but my point is that this is a system that will work for many cases - and the majority of cases still, however much we don't like to admit it - follow real life scenarios. YES there will be times it won't work, YES it isn't perfect. However, it does work, it is effective, it is useful, and that means this resolution doesn't need to be repealed. The fact that it provides a useful service is the reason it deserves to stay on the books.

Now, are you really going to be such an arrogant prick as to tell me that there is absolutely no possible way that this system could work in NS just because the two universes are different? I have a REAL hard time believing that.

Allech-Atreus

11-04-2007, 16:28

The point honorable advisor, is that mediation can only occur when both sides deem it necessary. Parties involved may still have some disagreement, but wish to see an end to pointless bloodshed on both sides. At this point they would seek the aid of MRoB's committee.

It's rather difficult to mediate when mortars and artillery shells are exploding around you. Perhaps one reason why it wasn't made mandatory.

No. It's pointless, as the Ausserlanders pointed out, because it's a non-mandatory committee that deals with undisputed borders. Which means it's a committee that does nothing.

Rang Erman

Altanar

11-04-2007, 16:39

In order to decide whether this repeal was one worth supporting, we looked at the main clauses of the resolution it seeks to repeal:

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared amongst UN members;

What exactly is the point of making nations recognize their undisputed borders? If they're not in dispute, the nations involved don't have a grievance that needs addressing.

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

This would be useful if the nations involved want third-party mediation. If they don't, this committee accomplishes nothing.

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;

Again, this is only useful if they want a third-party mediator. If they don't, this is as effective as a paper umbrella in a hurricane.

-4- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes;

The gold star this clause provides to nations is nice, but does nothing.

-5- URGES members to establish border crossing points with other members with whom they share a border, in order to increase international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships.

Also nice, but does nothing.

In summation, we feel the original resolution does nothing whatsoever, and is toothless. We also feel that nations who genuinely want peace can negotiate between themselves, or seek an impartial mediator, without the existence of a mostly-useless UN committee that will, most likely, see little use. Therefore, Altanar supports this repeal.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Retired WerePenguins

11-04-2007, 16:41

The multiverse actually was discussed during the original draft proposal debates and was used as an argument in FAVOR of the original resolution.

If you recall I was strongly opposed to its use (to the point where I almost threatened to walk out of the UN alltogether) and for the life of me I can't recall using a single OMG.

(In the mid 90's a programmed an online version of the board war game "Operation Market Garden" for the Multi-Player Games Netork so to me "OMG" has visions of paratroopers gliders and blowing up bridges. Operation Maret Garden was based on a WWII event made into the movie "A bridge too far.")

Here was my argument then in a nutshell. NationStates is far from perfect, but in many cases the emperor literally has no clothes. Population is one example, borders is another because borders tend to follow population to a large extent. (You ever hear of a declining population who was greatly expanding their borders?) In Nation States it is quite common for a single nation to have a population greater than the current population of the world and there are tens of thousands of nations out there. Even the multiverse can't explain all the population game insanities out there.

So how do you deal with the emperor with no clothes? You ignore the obvious fact that the emperor has no clothes! The problem is the same with the past/present/future tech paradox. You write resolutions that does not assume specific tech levels in order to be implemente. Likewise you write resolutions that do not make assumptions on any one method to solve the true paradox of populations and borders.

I remind you of the glorious and holy mantra, "NS NE RL" or "NationStates is not equal to Real Life." In NationStates nations have plethora of reasons to hate each other and to go to war with other. Border disputes although the bulk of wars in the RW are not the bulk of wars in NS. If I had choice between simply ignoring the not problem becase it would remind me that the naked emperor is ugly or comming up with some metagamed un-official nonsense for a semi-official document like a UN resolution I will pick, the former. Actually I would demand it, and I did.

This resolution should never have been written. Therefore it is logical to have it repealed.

Allech-Atreus

11-04-2007, 16:44

Try again. There is a reason why it HAS BEEN USED and HAS BEEN NEEDED in the past - in RL. There is a reason why people call Arbitrators to settle contract talks, why they'll have mediators help with settlements, and why people will go to various other groups such as courts to assist in settling their disputes: they want a resolution, but they're too proud to give up something so they get other people help them deem what's fair.

Except the resolution specifically deals with undisputed borders, which by their very definition are not in question. So there's no practical value in going to an international body if that body doesn't deal with what your problem is.

For National Leaders, giving up a territory willingly as part of an agreement makes you look weak. If you give up a territory because an International Body says "it does not belong to you" is often seen as better. Sure, there are some nations that welcome the weak, just as there are some (ok: many) who reward those that flaunt their ass at an International body. That doesn't mean that such arbitrators can't HELP on MANY cases. It doesn't mean that we can't find resolutions to problems.

Okay, so we're appealing to the lowest common denominator of tinpot dictators who need to come out top to keep hold on their government system? And the way to do that is through the UN? No one has suggested that we should let border disputes continue unresolved; my predecessors argued in the debote on the resolution itself that the best way to resolve border disputes is through force. That is our own national view, though.

You naysayers listen: THIS IS A TRIED AND TESTED SYSTEM IN REAL LIFE under REAL CONDITIONS with REAL PEOPLE. Yes, the NS Universe is slightly different, but my point is that this is a system that will work for many cases - and the majority of cases still, however much we don't like to admit it - follow real life scenarios. YES there will be times it won't work, YES it isn't perfect. However, it does work, it is effective, it is useful, and that means this resolution doesn't need to be repealed. The fact that it provides a useful service is the reason it deserves to stay on the books.

It doesn't provide a useful service because it doesn't deal with disputed borders, as the Ausserlanders have dutifully pointed out. There's no avoiding that.

So going back to the arguments:
1) The system is useless:
-No it isn't. Real life has proven that this system has been useful[/QUOTE]

If the system in question dealt with disputed borders, which it doesn't.

2) Nations can just start disputing borders to make them not recognized
-If they don't believe that's the right border in the first place, it isn't undisputed by definition - right? Bullox

What now?

3) The committee doesn't need to be listened to
-Yes, but we forget that there are many nations that listen to the UN in good faith even if they:
A) Aren't a part of the UN
B) Know they can abuse loopholes to get around it

So even if the resolution is open to abuse and isn't universal in it's application among UN nations, which smacks of optionality to me, we should keep it on the books? The UN is a fraction of the entirety of the NS world, and we should be content with a fraction of the UN actually using this pointless piece of legislation?

Just because many of you have spent a large portion of your time in the UN arrogantly proclaiming that you can violate the essence of every UN resolution ever written and happily spend your time finding loopholes doesn't mean everyone does. This is a committee for those that do listen to the UN in Good faith

Ah, the jab at the Creative Solutions Agency; and by proxy it's Ardchoillean counterpart. The point is moot, because the committee doesn't do anything anyway, so there's nothing to wrangle out of.

4) This committee is a waste of resources
-Dealt with in 1, but to summarize - no it's not

I don't recall anyone making that assertion, and if they did it's only an incidental to the real problem: that the resolution doesn't resolve disputed boders.

5) The issue can be dealt with better at a local level
-Sometimes you need someone who isn't from the local area to help.

Yes, someone who doesn't understand the complex social, cultural, and historical reasons behind the disputed border. We've stated before our opinions that resolution by force is the only lasting resolution, and we'll state it again. Bilateral negotiations would be much more effective.

6) This doesn't stop wars
-It does. Dealt with in 1. Does it stop all? No. But International Security is about improving our chances of averting war - so even if one war is stopped, it is a valid claim. As I've state, this system has proven IRL to prevent wars and to end border disputes.

Again, I'll state it: this doesn't resolve disputed borders. The wording states that it deals with undisputed borders, making it worthless.

Rang Erman
Advisor

Omigodtheykilledkenny

11-04-2007, 16:52

We'd care to ask the representative from Forgottenlands exactly how a committee with absolutely no authority can effectively sort out border disputes? This resolution doesn't even give the committee any tangible jurisdiction: it simply says its purpose is to "clarify" border disputes (like Auss says, whatever that means), then proceeds to give the committee no powers to "clarify" anything. FL's ambassador claims that people in good faith will listen to the UN, but fails to point out exactly how anyone can in good faith listen to a committee when no one even knows what cases it has authority to hear. "Clarify" really doesn't clarify a whole lot.

She repeatedly cites how "effective" this system works in other systems, without backing up her claims with any evidence. We would surely like to know exactly where in RL a UN committee with no clear jurisdiction, no listed duties, no real authority, and no real powers to arbitrate a dispute over a children's clubhouse, let alone international borders, effectively resolved any territorial dispute.

We eagerly await her response.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Karmicaria

11-04-2007, 17:39

*snip*

What, for the love of whatever god you think is listening, are you talking about? I think you're referring to the repeal at vote, but I'm really not sure.

This topic seems to be producing a few nonsensical, rambling tirades.

Tana Petrov
stuff and things....

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 18:09

In order to decide whether this repeal was one worth supporting, we looked at the main clauses of the resolution it seeks to repeal:

Yay, so did we

What exactly is the point of making nations recognize their undisputed borders? If they're not in dispute, the nations involved don't have a grievance that needs addressing.

And thus the nations that have absolutely no relation nor direct concern should recognize the matter. Fine, we have a loophole, but I think it is a fair request to make.

This would be useful if the nations involved want third-party mediation. If they don't, this committee accomplishes nothing.

In the meantime, we might as well provide the service to those that want the third party mediation

Again, this is only useful if they want a third-party mediator. If they don't, this is as effective as a paper umbrella in a hurricane.

The gold star this clause provides to nations is nice, but does nothing.

Also nice, but does nothing.

Says who it has to.

In summation, we feel the original resolution does nothing whatsoever,

It provides a service to the nations that wish to utilize such a service. If fail to see how this is nothing

and is toothless.

Y'know, for a general bunch of people who were so adament on the need for the UN to be a body of International Cooperation, a resolution that promotes International Cooperation is getting one hell of a lot of flak.

We also feel that nations who genuinely want peace can negotiate between themselves,

Which can't always happen

or seek an impartial mediator,

Which could be provided by the UN since it isn't immediately obvious what nation or organization they can go to if the nations in question do not have a common ally or body that they are a part of.

without the existence of a mostly-useless UN committee that will, most likely, see little use.

The fact that it will see little use doesn't mean it's useless. The gnomes could certainly be utilized in other areas while the committee isn't in session. Indeed, the fact that it will see little use gives this even more value as it is a small-budget service that could very well prevent a few costly International Disputes between trade partners or otherwise.

Therefore, Altanar supports this repeal.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

-------------------

Unlike Cluichstan, the following responders are, apparently, unable to distinguish between IC and OOC arguments and decided to attack my arguments from IC positions. I guess I'll let them get away with the metagaming card and blur the line as I make my response...

-------------------

Except the resolution specifically deals with undisputed borders, which by their very definition are not in question. So there's no practical value in going to an international body if that body doesn't deal with what your problem is.

What the fuck are you reading? The resolution does not deal with undisputed borders. It shovels the issue of undisputed borders under the rug and then deals with disputed borders

Okay, so we're appealing to the lowest common denominator of tinpot dictators who need to come out top to keep hold on their government system? And the way to do that is through the UN? No one has suggested that we should let border disputes continue unresolved; my predecessors argued in the debote on the resolution itself that the best way to resolve border disputes is through force. That is our own national view, though.

I don't disagree that there are many nations - such as your own - that believe border disputes are best settled through force. That doesn't mean, however, that there are many tin-pot dictatorships and (even) democracies who want strong leaders but still prefer peaceful solutions. In fact, in our experience, it is the democracies that have tended to pick the more peaceful solution while still wishing for a strong leader that can go toe-to-toe with the most vicious dictators and stare them down.

A nation such as your own doesn't have to utilize this service, but when two nations do require such services, I fail to see why the largest International Body shouldn't have such services available to aid them.

It doesn't provide a useful service because it doesn't deal with disputed borders, as the Ausserlanders have dutifully pointed out. There's no avoiding that.

At what point does the resolution limit its scope to ONLY undisputed borders? Show me the actual wording utilized and I'll show you why the argument is bullshit.

What now?

I speak English. Just because you don't understand the language doesn't make it my fault - it is, after all, the language of business for this United Nations

So even if the resolution is open to abuse and isn't universal in it's application among UN nations, which smacks of optionality to me, we should keep it on the books? The UN is a fraction of the entirety of the NS world, and we should be content with a fraction of the UN actually using this pointless piece of legislation?

Where does the resolution state that only UN nations can utilize the service? I remember when the Meteorlogical proposal (can't remember its name), we said that non-members would be fully able to utilize and contribute to this service. Somehow, it got an overwhelming amount of support.

I don't recall anyone making that assertion, and if they did it's only an incidental to the real problem: that the resolution doesn't resolve disputed boders.

Again, it does deal with disputed borders and, seriously, if that's the argument you guys are going to make, write your god damn repeal on that rather than "waste of resources" crap.

Also, I know you've had troubles reading in the past so allow me to help you locate which of your friends said that. It would be your friends from Omigodtheykilledkenny who felt that it was quite a waste of resources and that the Gnomes involved could...ahem.... "use a break"

Yes, someone who doesn't understand the complex social, cultural, and historical reasons behind the disputed border. We've stated before our opinions that resolution by force is the only lasting resolution, and we'll state it again. Bilateral negotiations would be much more effective.

The reason it was disputed in the first place was because of the complex social, cultural, and historical reasons behind it - at least I hope. However, that doesn't mean that a compromise isn't needed because obviously, the fact that it's disputed means that both of you have reasons to hold on to that precious land.

Nor is a committee blind to the very fact and, indeed, if there are certain cultural issues you feel weren't satisfactorily addressed, you can always disagree with the conclusion of what a fair compromise is. I still don't see a problem

Again, I'll state it: this doesn't resolve disputed borders. The wording states that it deals with undisputed borders, making it worthless.

HOW?

---------------------------

We'd care to ask the representative from Forgottenlands exactly how a committee with absolutely no authority can effectively sort out border disputes?

Just because it is inconceivable for people to be too big headed to give up territory without the UN's say-so while still retaining a wish to act in the spirit of good faith and cooperation doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

This resolution doesn't even give the committee any tangible jurisdiction: it simply says its purpose is to "clarify" border disputes (like Auss says, whatever that means), then proceeds to give the committee no powers to "clarify" anything.

It gives the committee practical free reign on what it wishes to do as a mediator so that the powers it has and the limitations can be most suitable molded to the specific needs of the parties requiring mediation. Basically, it gives the committee the power to make a ruling on whatever is requested by the two parties. I fail to see how that is a lack of powers and I fail to see how you completely missed this.

Oh yes, the concept that the committee could possibly operate on an autonomous scale because it is governed by gnomes must be a truly foreign concept.

FL's ambassador claims that people in good faith will listen to the UN, but fails to point out exactly how anyone can in good faith listen to a committee when no one even knows what cases it has authority to hear. "Clarify" really doesn't clarify a whole lot.

Clarify means that it can make a decision on the matter. Seeing as how the matter is non-binding but rather the recommendations of the committee (as per, as correctly pointed out, the lack of teeth by this resolution), it doesn't really matter if the committee does or doesn't have limitations, just that it make its recommendations and that there are a few nations who might ask for recommendations, receive them, and utilize them.

Again, I fail to see the problem

She repeatedly cites how "effective" this system works in other systems, without backing up her claims with any evidence. We would surely like to know exactly where in RL a UN committee with no clear jurisdiction, no listed duties, no real authority, and no real powers to arbitrate a dispute over a children's clubhouse, let alone international borders, effectively resolved any territorial dispute.

I believe I cited an incident - though if you wish to research the specifics of the incident rather than using IC attacks on my claims, please be my guest. I'm afraid I don't know much about the matter itself - merely that it happened and that it was settled "by the UN"

We eagerly await her response.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

----------------------

And one that I don't want to let go....

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal.

A true shame. Someone who we have great respect for has made an action we can't find any logic for.

NSUNR #190 is a fundamentally useless piece of legislation.

Hardly for reasons I have stated several times, but let's review the arguments first.

It requires nations to recognize their undisputed borders. Now, if the borders are undisputed, it means they're already recognized by the parties involved. This provision makes about as much sense as a law requiring people to breathe.

I think the clause is there for completeness rather than for any real purpose. Certainly, if we had a resolution that didn't mention undisputed borders, I'm certain that we would have some inane person from Omigodtheykilledkenny telling us how this resolution is pointless because it forgot to address undisputed borders. People will find holes and problems with every resolution so I don't see why this is a particular problem.

Then it establishes a committee. The committee is supposed to help nations "clarify" their borders. We don't know what that's supposed to mean exactly, but it certainly seems like something nations could very well do for themselves.

Every so often, they need a mediator - just as adults need mediators for all sorts of problems from contract disputes to legal matters (the latter, of course, being called judges).

And it's supposed to help nations "seek third-party mediation". There are over 25,000 nations in the NSUN, almost two thousand regions, and a number of international organizations. Surely nations who wish to find mediators could do that themselves.

I'm not going to claim that this is a matter unique to the UN or a service that only the UN can provide, but I fail to see why the UN shouldn't provide the service to parties that wish to utilize the UN as their mediator. After all, there are quite a few nations - I would say on the order of thousands - that put a fair bit of faith into this body - whether deserved or not. Certainly, we are the most public body and a service such as this being publicly stated to the entire planet as "we provide this" will make nations in dispute able to more easily find a mediator.

Then it does some applauding and urging. Fine. But we think the matter of national territory is something so basic to the existence of nations that not a lot of them will pay much attention to the NSUN's toothless urging, and will likely yawn at its applause.

Again, for completeness because, as we know, people find the most inane and stupid things to waste their time in attacking.

And finally, we have the meaningless drivel about a multiverse.

I'm sure there is an issue of completeness here - probably something that someone brought up during drafting. We are quickly growing bored of this entire debate.

The sum total effect of this resolution is to establish yet another committee to perform needless functions.

I would say they are inherently useful and I feel it is foolish to claim that no nation could find reason nor desire to utilize such a service

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

-------------------

OOC: I've got more to say, but I'll put it in a seperate post

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 18:34

OOC: I've got to say, it's kind of cool that I have my posts at the top of 3 of the 5 pages.

Anyways, I'm done with this debate. It's dispiriting. For reasons completely beyond my understanding or, perhaps, ability to comprehend, the same individuals who spent time going on about how small changes can be great, about how the UN could be a body for International Cooperation, about how good legislation should be available, are dropping this proposal like a rock.

I don't know if you're IC selves are just so extremist anti-bureaucracy, anti-UN-service, that you are crashing down on this resolution or your OOC selves just dislike the service, but whatever the case, this is either the most illogical debate I've ever read or the most dishonest debate I've ever read. Honestly, there's a part of me that wonders how much of this is "L&E can't write a resolution that's useful" and trying to purge the concept or that the committee is something unlike the majority we've created in the amount of power or influence its had that you can't stand the possibility.

Whatever the reason, I know the OOC counterparts to a number of you well enough that I honestly can't understand nor believe why you guys are so adamant on getting this proposal trashed. Further, my understanding of your IC selves really puts the arguments for this repeal (or, in some cases, against the original resolution since they weren't mentioned in the repeal) completely at odds with what you truly believe

1) Is this NatSov friendly? Yes. I don't know why the IntFed's seem to generally support it and the NatSovs seem to be against it, (well, the former I understand because we know there isn't a reasonable way to do this from an enforcement perspective) but it is NatSov friendly. It is a service you can utilize if you want, and if you don't like the conclusions of the service, you don't have to accept them. If you get annoyed by the borders or new evidence comes out about where they should be, you can start disputing it. At absolutely no point does it restrict your nation's power

2) Is the committee powerless? No. As Ausserland correctly pointed out, "clarify" is vague. Instead of actually failing to grant powers to the committee, it actually grants infinite powers to the committee (or, more accurately, flexibility) - though as a recommendation and only on the matters of border issues. Fine, not all mediation is done as a recommendation, but if we had actually clarified her powers, you'd be ranting about how their overbearing, fail to address certain issues, etc, etc, etc. Further, if we had made them binding, if you weren't bitching about NatSov, you'd be complaining about failure to recognize culture, etc, etc, etc. Quite frankly, the way it is done means that it has the power to consider culture and co, it isn't the final say on the matter but rather a proposal that can be considered by the parties in question. I would argue that most treaties work this way - especially treaties achieved through mediation.

3) Is the committee useless? No. I've pointed out successful RL examples where similar methods have worked. We could easily point out several unsuccessful RL examples where similar mediation has failed (not necessarily by the UN) as well. Just because it isn't perfect, though, doesn't mean it isn't useful. For some reason beyond my comprehension, you guys have associated with non-perfect world, conformist requirements as being insufficient when you complained tirelessly about how IntFeds were trying to bring in a one-world order. Add on 2, this argument is done

4) Is the resolution of poor quality? No. Possibly with exception to the multiverse line, I believe I have effectively and fully explained why every single aspect of the resolution is good, why the concept behind the resolution is good, and why it should all be there.

5) Is the resolution harmful? No. I see no reason why it is, and you guys have had ample opportunity to tell me why it would be. Thus far, you have all failed miserably

6) Couldn't nations find mediation services elsewhere? Yes. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't appreciate a different body (that a different set of nations have respect for) offering the service.

7) Isn't this a waste of resources? No.

8) How does this stop conflicts or even prevent them? Because nations need mediation every so often. Add on 6....yeah

9) RL =/= NS! <--- Not a catch all.

I don't get it. Honestly, come out of your characters and tell me: what is wrong with this resolution?

EDIT: Even if the reason is "My IC self can't support this" - tell me what part of your IC belief is being violated by this resolution

Gobbannium

11-04-2007, 19:19

We are against this proposed repeal, but if the supporters really want something more mandatory in its place we would be quite happy to oblige.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

11-04-2007, 19:20

It gives the committee practical free reign on what it wishes to do as a mediator so that the powers it has and the limitations can be most suitable molded to the specific needs of the parties requiring mediation. Basically, it gives the committee the power to make a ruling on whatever is requested by the two parties. I fail to see how that is a lack of powers and I fail to see how you completely missed this.

Oh yes, the concept that the committee could possibly operate on an autonomous scale because it is governed by gnomes must be a truly foreign concept.Really? The committee can do whatever it wants?! Lovely. So on the one hand, there is a total lack of oversight, and on the other, for any committee with seemingly limitless powers such as this one supposedly is, you first need some kind of, ahem, authority to carry out any of these powers. This committee doesn't have any. No one is bound to respect the judgment of this committee, not even all the nations you seem to think will voluntarily surrender their own good judgment and avail them of these services.

Clarify means that it can make a decision on the matter. Seeing as how the matter is non-binding but rather the recommendations of the committee (as per, as correctly pointed out, the lack of teeth by this resolution), it doesn't really matter if the committee does or doesn't have limitations, just that it make its recommendations and that there are a few nations who might ask for recommendations, receive them, and utilize them.

Again, I fail to see the problemThe problem here is that in one breath you claim this is an effective system, and in the next you admit the committee has no power beyond recommendation. Somehow we fail to see how establishing a committee we freely admit is impaneled to discuss a matter of genuine international import, but has no real power beyond wagging its collective finger, is not a waste of the UN's time and resources.

I believe I cited an incident - though if you wish to research the specifics of the incident rather than using IC attacks on my claims, please be my guest. I'm afraid I don't know much about the matter itself - merely that it happened and that it was settled "by the UN"We don't think even the RL UN is so unwise as to create a commission with what you claim is rather broad "powers" to talk about anything it wants, and yet no authority to do anything about any matters that come before it.

Once again, this committee has no authority to arbitrate anything, just the power to grandstand and tell nations they should behave. Their opinion carries no weight. The only place in this resolution that says nations might be able to consult this committee and follow its recommendations is where it says it might be a good idea for disputing nations to talk to someone about their dispute. It might be a good idea to brush after meals, too, but we don't need the UN passing a resolution just to tell us that, then hiring a dentist that doesn't even clean teeth.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

11-04-2007, 19:21

We are against this proposed repeal, but if the supporters really want something more mandatory in its place we would be quite happy to oblige.Oh, goody. ~Cdr. Chiang

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 19:32

We don't think even the RL UN is so unwise as to create a commission with what you claim is rather broad "powers" to talk about anything it wants, and yet no authority to do anything about any matters that come before it.

OOC: Explain to me something: by what authority does ANYTHING the RL United Nations arbitrates between nations is binding. Everything it does regarding mediation is a recommendation that may be accepted or rejected by the parties involved. Until you can explain that, I don't think there's really any point of me wasting time on that claim.

Altanar

11-04-2007, 19:45

And thus the nations that have absolutely no relation nor direct concern should recognize the matter. Fine, we have a loophole, but I think it is a fair request to make.

An undisputed border, by definition, is one that no one is disputing. Therefore, there is no one that such a request would need to be made to. And MRoB never spells out that it has any effect at all on disputed borders.

In the meantime, we might as well provide the service to those that want the third party mediation

Simply doing something because "we might as well" is not a convincing argument to us. We believe that the UN should do something if it genuinely might make a difference - something we believe MRoB does not do.

Says who it has to.

No one, but we would argue that the fact MRoB does very little negates much of the argument to keep it around.

It provides a service to the nations that wish to utilize such a service. If fail to see how this is nothing

Perhaps nothing was too strong a phrase for us to use. Almost nothing, however, would seem to be just about right.

Y'know, for a general bunch of people who were so adament on the need for the UN to be a body of International Cooperation, a resolution that promotes International Cooperation is getting one hell of a lot of flak.

We are all in favor of promoting international cooperation. We would just like to see it done more effectively in regards to border disputes.

Which can't always happen

Nations that genuinely want peace can't always find a way to negotiate? We view that as a very negative viewpoint.

Which could be provided by the UN since it isn't immediately obvious what nation or organization they can go to if the nations in question do not have a common ally or body that they are a part of.

Again, nations that truly want peace can use the time-honored expedient of talking to one another. Also, we would think that nations who really want to resolve a dispute peacefully would be able to choose a neutral party they could accept. Nations that didn't really want a peaceful resolution wouldn't choose the UN (or anyone else) to resolve it anyway.

The fact that it will see little use doesn't mean it's useless. The gnomes could certainly be utilized in other areas while the committee isn't in session. Indeed, the fact that it will see little use gives this even more value as it is a small-budget service that could very well prevent a few costly International Disputes between trade partners or otherwise.

Not if CMRoB is not empowered to do anything other than talk about undisputed borders, which it currently is not.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 20:03

Alright, I'm still not getting where you guys see this proposal as failing to give CMRoB the right to deal with disputed borders, so let's review....

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

Says "Clarify their borders" which doesn't day anything about whether those borders are disputed or undisputed. It simply says that if people wish, they can get clarification on what their borders should be. So where does it actually say disputed. Well, my friends, look at what we have sitting in the very next line:

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;

Wow. "Border disputes". I wonder what happens if we rearrange those words....and maybe change the present tense to past tense....we get

"disputed borders"

*gasp*

Who would've thought that this was possible. But wait....how does this relate to the CMRoB? Oh right - if we translate this sentence for everyone to look at very closely, we see that it says that if there's a border dispute now or at any point in the future, they should look for a third party mediator (such as CMRoB) to resolve the issue. Indeed, we find that if we look back at clause 2, one of the 2 main points about what CMRoB is about is for mediation.

Huh. Who would've thought that we'd find something in here directly linking border disputes with the CMRoB.

Anyways, to note a few points from Altanar

Nations that genuinely want peace can't always find a way to negotiate? We view that as a very negative viewpoint.

To not have a backup plan for the most pessimistic possibility is foolhardy, in our opinion.

We are all in favor of promoting international cooperation. We would just like to see it done more effectively in regards to border disputes.

Do you have a suggestion or do you just wish to stand there and say "this isn't good enough"? If the latter, isn't SOMETHING better than nothing? Until I see a viable idea for replacement, I don't buy this argument.

BTW - before someone claims otherwise, you yourself admitted it was not nothing. Almost nothing is still something.

Again, nations that truly want peace can use the time-honored expedient of talking to one another. Also, we would think that nations who really want to resolve a dispute peacefully would be able to choose a neutral party they could accept. Nations that didn't really want a peaceful resolution wouldn't choose the UN (or anyone else) to resolve it anyway.

And again, I fail to see how the UN cannot act as the neutral third party in many cases - especially if the two nations in question are, indeed, nations that have faith in the operation of the United Nations.

Raneik

11-04-2007, 20:24

if the two nations in question are, indeed, nations that have faith in the operation of the United Nations.

and that is exactly the problem witn the whole system. not everyone has to listen. just look at the US. But i do agree, until someithing better comes along this is just fine. its better to have an innefective policy than no policy at all.

Ausserland

11-04-2007, 20:25

OOC: I don't like coming out of character to discuss the substance of resolutions, but since Forgottenlands asked us to do that, I will.

1) Is this NatSov friendly? Yes. I don't know why the IntFed's seem to generally support it and the NatSovs seem to be against it, (well, the former I understand because we know there isn't a reasonable way to do this from an enforcement perspective) but it is NatSov friendly. It is a service you can utilize if you want, and if you don't like the conclusions of the service, you don't have to accept them. If you get annoyed by the borders or new evidence comes out about where they should be, you can start disputing it. At absolutely no point does it restrict your nation's power

Yes, the resolution is NatSov friendly. As you know, FL, NatSov/IntFed is not an absolute determinant for me. I play Ausserland as subsidiarist, and this resolution is anti-subsidiarist. It sets up an NSUN committee to do things that nations could very well and just as easily do on their own.

2) Is the committee powerless? No. As Ausserland correctly pointed out, "clarify" is vague. Instead of actually failing to grant powers to the committee, it actually grants infinite powers to the committee (or, more accurately, flexibility) - though as a recommendation and only on the matters of border issues. Fine, not all mediation is done as a recommendation, but if we had actually clarified her powers, you'd be ranting about how their overbearing, fail to address certain issues, etc, etc, etc. Further, if we had made them binding, if you weren't bitching about NatSov, you'd be complaining about failure to recognize culture, etc, etc, etc. Quite frankly, the way it is done means that it has the power to consider culture and co, it isn't the final say on the matter but rather a proposal that can be considered by the parties in question. I would argue that most treaties work this way - especially treaties achieved through mediation.

Yes, the committee is powerless. It has no authority whatever to impose or enforce anything. Exactly what power do you think it has? And please don't use the tired old argument that if the resolution did something that people would have objected to its doing something. You're simply highlighting the ineffectual nature of the committee.

3) Is the committee useless? No. I've pointed out successful RL examples where similar methods have worked. We could easily point out several unsuccessful RL examples where similar mediation has failed (not necessarily by the UN) as well. Just because it isn't perfect, though, doesn't mean it isn't useful. For some reason beyond my comprehension, you guys have associated with non-perfect world, conformist requirements as being insufficient when you complained tirelessly about how IntFeds were trying to bring in a one-world order. Add on 2, this argument is done

Yes, the committee is useless. Apparently even you don't know what "clarify" means in this context. Is the committee going to furnish a contingent of surveyors to go map stuff? Why do we need a UN committee to do that? You keep harping on the usefulness of mediation in international disputes. OK. We agree with that. But now let's look at the committee. Can it provide mediation services? Yes. But my point here is that there are plenty of nations, regional governments, and other organizations that could provide such services without having this committee around. Can it provide arbitration? No. Not in its mandate. Can it require nations to submit disputes to mediation? No.

4) Is the resolution of poor quality? No. Possibly with exception to the multiverse line, I believe I have effectively and fully explained why every single aspect of the resolution is good, why the concept behind the resolution is good, and why it should all be there.

No comment.

5) Is the resolution harmful? No. I see no reason why it is, and you guys have had ample opportunity to tell me why it would be. Thus far, you have all failed miserably

As I've said over and over, the existence of poor quality legislation on the books diminishes the probability that better legislation on the subject will be forthcoming. Beyond the issue of actual blocking under the rules is the issue of the "psychological blocker": the discouragement of people from addressing something that's "already been done." So I believe that, if a resolution fails to do something useful, it should be repealed.

6) Couldn't nations find mediation services elsewhere? Yes. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't appreciate a different body (that a different set of nations have respect for) offering the service.

Of course they can! And, if they wanted to, they would.

7) Isn't this a waste of resources? No.

Yes.

8) How does this stop conflicts or even prevent them? Because nations need mediation every so often. Add on 6....yeah

Absurd. If nations want to peacefully settle border disputes, they will. If they want to resort to arms to settle the issue, they will. This resolution doesn't do a single thing to change that.

9) RL =/= NS! <--- Not a catch all.

Agreed. But your RL references support only the validity of mediation as a conflict management tool. I have no quarrel with that at all. I simply contend that, if that's going to happen, it will happen with or without this resolution and its powerless committee.

Rubina

11-04-2007, 20:37

I am struck by the conviction that those maintaining the uselessness of both the MRB and its committee have little understanding of the powerful role voluntary mediation can play or of the traditional techniques involved. Perhaps some are comfortable with "if we can't talk it out, we can beat each other senseless", but it makes for a poorer world overall. We are all in favor of promoting international cooperation. We would just like to see it done more effectively in regards to border disputes.What exactly do you have in mind for a more effective role for the UN in border disputes? Or is your argument just rhetoric?
Nations that genuinely want peace can't always find a way to negotiate? We view that as a very negative viewpoint.

Again, nations that truly want peace can use the time-honored expedient of talking to one another. Also, we would think that nations who really want to resolve a dispute peacefully would be able to choose a neutral party they could accept. Nations that didn't really want a peaceful resolution wouldn't choose the UN (or anyone else) to resolve it anyway.Really? And if they don't speak the same language and have widely varying cultures, how are they to talk to each other without creating further misunderstanding unless they use an intermediary? Let's posit a border dispute. Our hypothetical involves a region that has seen a long history of arguments, over borders primarily, but other things as well. As is often the case, more than two nations are involved in this dispute. The nations (and peoples) involved despise each other, no they fucking hate each other, but settlement of the border dispute is utmost in their minds at this time. Do they just sit down and talk to each other? Without fisticuffs breaking out over the fondue? Let's say, for the hypothetical, the nations involved desire the use of a mediator. How is one to be chosen? Any single nation mediator suggested by any of the parties is going to be seen by the others as being secretly, or not so secretly, allied with one of the three parties. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, that's the way it will be seen. Which leaves them to turn to an internationally recognized body, which just happens to have a committee assigned with such duties, for mediation services. And that service is hardly a useless function.Not if CMRoB is not empowered to do anything other than talk about undisputed borders, which it currently is not.Perhaps a rereading of the pertinent clauses will help.-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputesClause 3 does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, it back references clause 2 (the establishment of the committee), AND it references the use of said committee in future disputes over borders. So much for "not empowered to do anything" besides talk about undisputed borders.

What, for the love of whatever god you think is listening, are you talking about? I think you're referring to the repeal at vote, but I'm really not sure. If you're referring to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12533445&postcount=57), we found it quite interesting, but then, we followed the entire conversation instead of jumping in the middle. Oddly enough, the WerePenguins make one of the few rational arguments to repeal MRB, but that argument breaks the same rule he accuses the MRB of doing, thus weakening his argument.We are against this proposed repeal, but if the supporters really want something more mandatory in its place we would be quite happy to oblige.And you would find much support. In fact...I see trees of green........ red roses too
I see em bloom..... for me and for you
And I think to myself.... what an Int-Fed world.

Quintessence of Dust

11-04-2007, 20:49

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 20:56

OOC: Yes, the resolution is NatSov friendly. As you know, FL, NatSov/IntFed is not an absolute determinant for me.

Gunning for 5 people in a single post - the rest being, generally, polarized NatSov

I play Ausserland as subsidiarist, and this resolution is anti-subsidiarist.

Ok....apparently my attempts to research this term have failed. Could you clarify?

It sets up an NSUN committee to do things that nations could very well and just as easily do on their own.

*sighs* I'll grab your last few lines as well before I respond completely here....

Absurd. If nations want to peacefully settle border disputes, they will. If they want to resort to arms to settle the issue, they will. This resolution doesn't do a single thing to change that.

Agreed. But your RL references support only the validity of mediation as a conflict management tool. I have no quarrel with that at all. I simply contend that, if that's going to happen, it will happen with or without this resolution and its powerless committee.

I'm not going to disagree that the service can be provided by other nations, regions or International bodies, nor that nations looking for an independent arbitrator will not be able to find one. So where is it that I disagree with you here?

In my 6th point. There are a number of nations - I would say at least 10% of the UN and possibly as high as 30% - have faith (however unfounded or pointless or illogical) in it being a neutral and fair body. This is a service that the UN can provide, but the only way to provide this service is to have an AUC responsible for it.

I think it's also fair to say that less than half are part of a different International body and a large percentage are not in an organized region. Yes, they could call upon another region, nation, international body, whathaveyou but why wouldn't they prefer to call upon something they are a full member of?

Yes, the committee is powerless. It has no authority whatever to impose or enforce anything. Exactly what power do you think it has?

The power to make its recommendations and where it thinks the border should be. That's what I think the term clarify means.

And please don't use the tired old argument that if the resolution did something that people would have objected to its doing something. You're simply highlighting the ineffectual nature of the committee.

There's a difference.

If we passed a resolution that forced people to do anything, the NatSovs would complain that we're pushing them into doing something they don't believe in/support/whatever. Really, I'm looking at this as a service that the UN could provide.

Yes, the committee is useless. Apparently even you don't know what "clarify" means in this context. Is the committee going to furnish a contingent of surveyors to go map stuff? Why do we need a UN committee to do that?

If you can come to the conclusion that the UN can and should provide the service, then the committee follows as the way to provide the service since it is not within the power of the UN (or, really, any existing committee) to resolve the matter.

You keep harping on the usefulness of mediation in international disputes. OK. We agree with that. But now let's look at the committee. Can it provide mediation services? Yes. But my point here is that there are plenty of nations, regional governments, and other organizations that could provide such services without having this committee around.

Oh, there's the line - I wanted to group it above. Anyways, see previous comments.

Can it provide arbitration? No. Not in its mandate.

About time someone brought a good argument on the matter. Though Clarify could easily mean arbitrate the border, but that's a different story.

Can it require nations to submit disputes to mediation? No.

I never said that I wanted nor supported the idea. In fact, I think forcing them to be submitted to mediation would piss off a hell of a lot of people.

No comment.

As I've said over and over, the existence of poor quality legislation on the books diminishes the probability that better legislation on the subject will be forthcoming. Beyond the issue of actual blocking under the rules is the issue of the "psychological blocker": the discouragement of people from addressing something that's "already been done." So I believe that, if a resolution fails to do something useful, it should be repealed.

I have never heard this statement in the past from you or anyone else.

Also, this concept went through 4 years of the existance of this United Nations before being done - and apparently even when it was done, it was done by a totally new member who did it improperly and L&E picked it up. I think there are much bigger concerns than a psychological blocker at stake here.

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 21:10

I've got completely lost over the course of this debate, but let me try to get things clear.

Under MRoB, nations can at any point decide to expand their territorial possessions by invasion, on any pretext or on none, can wage indiscriminate wars to reduce others' territorial possessions, can refuse to recognise the existence and sovereignty of states who they disagree with on anything from matters of historical and political import to the way to eat a boiled egg, can colonise any territory at their will and against the will of the people there, can refuse to consult with mediation bodies, can consult with mediation bodies and discard the decision (continuing their nastiness regardless), or can, if they're feeling improbably charitable, choose to consult with a body other than the CMRoB.

Is it that opponents of the repeal:
- dispute the above,
- recognise the above and approve of this state of affairs,
- other?

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

Other.

We recognize the state of affairs, nor do we approve of those nations that utilize such a tactic. At no point, however, do we claim that this resolution is aimed at resolving this matter NOR do we claim that we are aware of a reasonable way of dealing with the situation. It isn't that we approve of the matter or disagree that such a methodology can be used. However, we do think it is outside of the capabilities of the UN to prevent warmongering nations from doing such actions because, quite frankly....

WE DON'T HAVE WEAPONS

Further, if two nations feel that the best source for mediation is not the United Nations but a different organization more aware of their problems or more capable of handling the situation, we fully welcome the utilization of that group. For example, two theocracies that are of the same religion may choose the head of their church to assist in mediating their dispute. Yes, that does mean some, lesser, mediation forces might be used, but we never claimed otherwise. What am I missing again?

Cluichstan

11-04-2007, 21:18

WE DON'T HAVE WEAPONS

Very interesting.

Tarquin, send a message to Commander Nikrat...

Quintessence of Dust

11-04-2007, 21:20

At no point, however, do we claim that this resolution is aimed at resolving this matter
Sorry, you don't think that a resolution entitled 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' is aimed at resolving the matter of mutual recognition of borders? So, uh, just what is it aimed at resolving?
Very interesting.
She was referring to the UN.

-- George Madison

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 21:29

Again, someone feels that a resolution which resolves some problems but not all is failing to achieve what it claims.

It doesn't deal with all cases. I've said that several times. It deals with mutual recognition of borders by helping those people willing to resolve things peacefully to find a peaceful resolution.

Please, do not waste our time with more claims that its failure to stop Warmongers means it failed in its objective - if you can tell me how we can stop Warmongers with reasonably small loopholes while still within the capacity of the UN, I would love to hear it. Until such a time as you've got such an answer, let's move on.

Quintessence of Dust

11-04-2007, 21:35

Again, someone feels that a resolution which resolves some problems but not all is failing to achieve what it claims.
You haven't answered me: what are its objectives?
It deals with mutual recognition of borders by helping those people willing to resolve things peacefully to find a peaceful resolution.
Do you actually not see the tautology in that, or are you just being deceitful? If they're willing to resolve things peacefully then they don't need a damned resolution, do they!
Please, do not waste our time with more claims that its failure to stop Warmongers means it failed in its objective
I'm not: I'm asking what its objective is!
if you can tell me how we can stop Warmongers with reasonably small loopholes while still within the capacity of the UN, I would love to hear it.
Do you not think, if arbitration is so wonderful, that requiring those disputing borders to make use of such services might at least be a marginal improvement?
Until such a time as you've got such an answer, let's move on.
Um, no. The other night I went to a play, and it wasn't very good. I don't need to be able to write a better play myself to be able to criticise that one.

-- George Madison

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 21:48

Do you actually not see the tautology in that, or are you just being deceitful? If they're willing to resolve things peacefully then they don't need a damned resolution, do they!

I'm not being deceitful: I truly do not believe that as a fundamental claim of how all negotiations of good faith would go. I simply don't. I can't possibly explain it any clearer - I've tried several times to explain it and it continually has gotten ignored. I don't believe this to be fact. I think that 95% of cases this claim is true for, but the other 5% I DO believe need this resolution.

SilentScope001

11-04-2007, 21:56

Please, do not waste our time with more claims that its failure to stop Warmongers means it failed in its objective - if you can tell me how we can stop Warmongers with reasonably small loopholes while still within the capacity of the UN, I would love to hear it.

Two words: Humanitarian Intervention.

Accuse the Warmonger of committing genocide, get the TPP to agree to it, and then start filling out the paperwork for a military intervention to blow up the Warmonger.

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 22:02

Two words: Humanitarian Intervention.

Accuse the Warmonger of committing genocide, get the TPP to agree to it, and then start filling out the paperwork for a military intervention to blow up the Warmonger.

The TPP has heard only 4 cases and ruled on....I think none of them. The TPP is a dead body.

EDIT: Oh, and codifying that would, almost certainly, be illegal under today's ruleset

SilentScope001

11-04-2007, 22:09

The TPP has heard only 4 cases and ruled on....I think none of them. The TPP is a dead body.

EDIT: Oh, and codifying that would, almost certainly, be illegal under today's ruleset

True, but you must realize that now gnomes run the TPP. The TPP, in essence, has just as much power as this current Comittiee on border disputes. Except more so.

If you assume that this current committee will be able to help people work together and negogiate, even so no human is on there and that gnomes are really running the scenes, then one can also assume that the TPP is also ruling on genocide cases behind our back and authorizing military invasions.

Since you can say that this committee may have stopped 5% of all boder conflicts, then surely the TPP may have stopped 5% of all genocides and 5% of all human rights abuses. If this committee is not useless, then the TPP is not useless, and is not a dead body, it is in fact more useful than this resolution.

Therefore, the UN can stop warmongers.

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 22:17

True, but you must realize that now gnomes run the TPP. The TPP, in essence, has just as much power as this current Comittiee on border disputes. Except more so.

I feel more comfortable knowing that the TPP is dead than knowing Gnomes run it. When Gnomes run it, I can go "The TPP ruled that Cluichstan is committing Genocide and have authorized a multinational force against him. Who's with me?"

BTW - let's hypothetically say that is true and that the situation is Cluichstan is actually the warmongering nation we threw in front of the TPP. Tell me, how many people do you hear saying "I'm in"?

If you assume that this current committee will be able to help people work together and negogiate, even so no human is on there and that gnomes are really running the scenes, then one can also assume that the TPP is also ruling on genocide cases behind our back and authorizing military invasions.

Since you can say that this committee may have stopped 5% of all wars, then surely the TPP may have stopped 5% of all genocides and 5% of all human rights abuses. If this committee is not useless, then the TPP is not useless, and is not a dead body, it is in fact more useful.

Therefore, the UN can stop warmongers.

It is actually more dangerous that way and should be shut down permanently under that argument.

This is also, if you weren't aware, a major component of why we can't have a UN Army - we need someone to figure out when a multinational force would actually have been called up and that would mean a neutral party which would mean.....oh right

Mod intervention.

Which is why the TPP would not be allowed to take on the additional responsibility even if we assumed that you were correct in saying that Gnomes were authorizing invasions.

SilentScope001

11-04-2007, 22:20

I feel more comfortable knowing that the TPP is dead than knowing Gnomes run it. When Gnomes run it, I can go "The TPP ruled that Cluichstan is committing Genocide and have authorized a multinational force against him. Who's with me?"

Well, you are not a gnome. So, really, you have no contorl over what the gnomes say.

I usually assume that the gnomes are busy ruling cases on non-existant nations rather than actually real nations. And pulling that TPP Card is likely to get you hit with the IGNORE Cannon by Cluichstan, which means you automatically lose the war.

It is actually more dangerous that way and should be shut down permanently under that argument.

Somewhat. I rather have this resolution out, due to giving the TPP too much power, but it seems that it is quite popular amongst other nations, and so, any attempt to repeal it would be stupid.

This is also, if you weren't aware, a major component of why we can't have a UN Army - we need someone to figure out when a multinational force would actually have been called up and that would mean a neutral party which would mean.....oh right

Mod intervention.

Good point. Which is why we assume that no Player nation gets accused of genocide. We can easily see gnomes using the TPP to attack other gnome nations, but they will never interfere where it matters, in actual RPs.

Which is why the TPP would not be allowed to take on the additional responsibility even if we assumed that you were correct in saying that Gnomes were authorizing invasions.

Only in actual RPs. Behind the scenes work, where Gnomes use the TPP to attack NPC nations, and no Player knows of it...or cares for it...then, oh well. Similar how 5% of all border disputes could be solved by the above committee, we just assume it is being done, even if no UN nation ever talked to this committee.

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 22:35

Your fundamental assumptions are incorrect, but let us begin.

Let's say that......*rolls dice*.....Imperfectia starts committing Genocide. We'd stick him in front of the TPP who would decide whether he did commit Genocide and then decide whether or not we should begin an intervention.

Start from how does the process work from the observation of the player. Who would figure out the start and end points to the TPP's deliberations? When would the decision of the multi-national force be decided upon? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Expand. Slate clean, let's start again:

Most cases of Genocide come after someone uncovers some evidence.

Waterana has released some disturbing pictures and claims that they were from the territory of Omigodtheykilledkenny and it clearly shows that there is a case of genocide being conducted there.

Same questions, conclusion?

Expand. Slate clean, let's start again:

Same situation, only let's say that Paradica, Ausserland, and Texan Hotrodders also found evidence for the situation.

Wash, rinse repeat, eventually you get

"Cluichstan's been sentenced by the TPP and has authorized a multinational force to invade him. Who's with me?"

SilentScope001

11-04-2007, 22:38

Let's say that......*rolls dice*.....Imperfectia starts committing Genocide. We'd stick him in front of the TPP who would decide whether he did commit Genocide and then decide whether or not we should begin an intervention.

The TPP will get back to you on this after they finish all their other very important gnome-like work and dealing with the genocide in NPCLand#593.

Meaning, never.

Gnomes only work to fufil NPC duties. Therefore, to me, they can only rule on NPC nations, listen to NPC cases, and deal with NPC crises. If Imperfectia is a Player nation, then the TPP cannot listen to his case. If Imperfetcia is an NPC nation, then yes, the TPP can listen to his case, because nobody cares about NPCs.

This is what I am saying. You say that this Committee helps in negogations. If it does, so can the TPP. If this committee is active, then SO can the TPP. The Committee and the TPP only can work and deal with NPC cases, but that still is 5% of all genocides and 5% of all border conflicts being resolved. Who cares if it is only NPC lives being saved or murdered in the process? We have stopped warmongers, and we have caused peace.

(EDIT: Alternatively, I could actually see such an abuse occuring. Here's how I would handle it.

If BOTH the Players accusing the player of Genocide and the Players Accused of Genocide, agree to have the UN gnomes rule for a military intervention, then okay. It will be an RP assumption. If the Players Accused of Genocide see that the Invading Players are just godmodding, then they just IGNORE the RPers, as they are idiots. If however the Players Accused of Genocide WANTS to be invaded, then they implictly accept the verdict, or basically ask the original Players to roleplay talking to the UN Gnomes.

Basically, both Players, not nations, must consent for the Gnomes to call "genocide".)

Forgottenlands

11-04-2007, 22:48

SilentScope001

11-04-2007, 22:51

You realize that to make the argument, you had to create NPC nations (which have never been theorized or acknowledged), you had to claim that committees can't have any effect upon our nations (which changes the way we debate AUC concerns), and you had to redefine how Gnomes operate.

I think a Mod ruling would be apporiate for deciding EXACTLY is true about the TPP. Once a mod rules, I'll follow its desicions.

However, I would like to point to the consent issue. If players consent to have the gnomes rule a certain way, then so be it. There is an OOC element in Rping, and it should be a pleasent element.

Also, the 5% I referred to are the 5% of cases that have difficulty being handled without a mediator. I can assure you that the TPP is dealing with near 100% of cases if it is, indeed, running.

In this hyper-interventioist and hyper-genocidical wars, so many nations are bored of filling out paperwork that they just go and invade the country in question. So, the 5% is somewhat accurate. I was a player while the TPP was in existence, and they did not gain much members so really, they couldn't handle all cases. I had to create some brand new panel to deal with a genocide issue that was outside the relams of the TPP.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

11-04-2007, 23:13

OOC: Just a friendly request before I have to get back to work: If you are incapable of limiting your remarks to this repeal and the resolution it's addressing, then stop posting here. Thank you.

Frisbeeteria

11-04-2007, 23:17

I think a Mod ruling would be apporiate for deciding EXACTLY is true about the TPP. Once a mod rules, I'll follow its desicions.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12534570&postcount=2

OOC: Just a friendly request before I have to get back to work: If you are incapable of limiting your remarks to this repeal and the resolution it's addressing, then stop posting here. Thank you.
What he said.

Quintessence of Dust

12-04-2007, 00:21

I'm not being deceitful: I truly do not believe that as a fundamental claim of how all negotiations of good faith would go. I simply don't. I don't believe this to be fact. I think that 95% of cases this claim is true for, but the other 5% I DO believe need this resolution.
I believe a lot of things. I know I am expected to provide evidence for them if I am to convince others to believe them. You are asking us to continue funding a useless committee, and your reason is 'I believe'. Impressive stuff, that shall be countered from here on in with 'I believe the opposite'.

I'm going to see if any of the other opponents of the repeal will respond to my question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12534157&postcount=72): is it that we disagree on what the proposal does, on its flabby nothingness being a bad thing, or some other subtlety to this debate I'm missing?

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

Ausserland

12-04-2007, 00:22

I am struck by the conviction that those maintaining the uselessness of both the MRB and its committee have little understanding of the powerful role voluntary mediation can play or of the traditional techniques involved.

And we're struck by how some choose to stuff all proponents or opponents of a measure into a tidy package and, in doing so, misrepresent the positions of some or all of them. Since we have certainly been "maintaining the uselessness of both the MRB and its committee", we resent it.

We have a very good understanding of mediation and other conflict resolution techniques, thank you. We consider mediation to be a powerful tool in averting confrontation. We have never said otherwise. What we have said, if the representative would care to take the trouble to read and understand our comments, is that this resolution does absolutely nothing that is necessary to bring mediation about. There are many avenues available to any nation to secure mediation in a border disagreement. There is simply no need to have one more NSUN committee to "help".

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Kivisto

12-04-2007, 00:30

OOC: Explain to me something: by what authority does ANYTHING the RL United Nations arbitrates between nations is binding. Everything it does regarding mediation is a recommendation that may be accepted or rejected by the parties involved. Until you can explain that, I don't think there's really any point of me wasting time on that claim.

The RLUN has the combined military might of its members. Should one member step out of line from the decisions made by the rest of the group, they would be facing economic, political, religious, and travel sanctions, as well as the possibility of military action being taken against them. That grants them a great deal of authority to make any decision they make stick when they really feel strongly about something. We lack that kind of solidarity here.

There was one thing that kept nagging at my mind over some of the arguments being used, and I could not until now quite hammer it down.

Under MRB, neither the UN, nor the CMRoB would be doing any form of arbitration at all. Mutual Recognition of Borders does not say anything about having its committee or the UN itself arbitrate anything.

What it does state is this:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

It will help members seek third party neutral mediation. It does not say it will offer third party mediation services. It does not even guarantee the aquisition of third party neutral mediation. It will simply help them find it. I must fall back to the statement that nations can do this on their own.

All in all, for the committee itself, (i)nations can define their own borders, and (ii)they can seek out neutral third part mediation services on their own.

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 00:31

I believe a lot of things. I know I am expected to provide evidence for them if I am to convince others to believe them. You are asking us to continue funding a useless committee, and your reason is 'I believe'. Impressive stuff, that shall be countered from here on in with 'I believe the opposite'.

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

I have provided my arguments several times. I have no evidence of this committee being used because I have been back in the UN a mere month and haven't had time to catch up on all matters including the operational history of the committee in question. Indeed, I hadn't even found time to read UNR #190 until this repeal came up for vote.

I have provided evidence of mediation being utilized to resolve disputes. I guess it is worth pointing out that Forgottenlands, should it ever be involved in a border dispute that requires mediation, would have the UN as its first preference as mediators of the dispute. Why? Because we are not a part of any International Body that has a governing mandate (UIC is defunct anyways and UNOG isn't really designed for this sort of thing.....not that UIC is), and we have no region to speak of to which we can claim loyalty or turn to for assistance. If it were not the United Nations, we are uncertain who we would turn to for assistance in mediation - especially since some of the biggest International Bodies we have become bitter enemies with.

If you will not accept that as evidence, than I truly can not help you. We have stated our arguments over and over again, but there seems to be a problem of rampant idealism that people with good intentions will always succeed in finding a good result. If this were true, the UN would still have more than half of her first 10 resolutions.

I do not believe I could be any more clear on this matter.

Retired WerePenguins

12-04-2007, 00:32

It doesn't deal with all cases. I've said that several times. It deals with mutual recognition of borders by helping those people willing to resolve things peacefully to find a peaceful resolution.

As far as I can see this resolution does nothing. I think it is the burden of proof to show how this resolution actually does something. The resolution basically creates a committee for some general purpose without a single mention of how it is to achieve that purpose. Everything else is worthless encouragement or urgings.

It is claimed that this resolution somehow helps with border disputes. This is blatant nonsense. Border disputes are not little things that only need the helpful insights of a third person disinterested party to resolve. People will fight and die for little plots of land, no matter how irrational that might sound to people. Border disputes are highly emotional issues, touching on mattes of intense pride. One might compare them to that of a divorce. What is needed is binding arbitration, not mediocre mediation.

The CMRoB is a useless committee without authority or ability. The resolution itself admits that there are other organizations that can do a similar job, “URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB.” Since these other third parties must exist, they must also be able to do the same ineffectual job as the CMRoB is doing. Not only is this resolution doing nothing but repealing this resolution will continue to allow the nothing to be done.

If we are honest there is only one thing that this resolution did, “slash worldwide military spending.” Why or how it did that escapes me. Why this was never thrown into the trash heap of “silly and illegal” proposals escapes me. Never the less this trash was passed, a useless committee was created and millions of hard working service men and women had to eat inferior rations because their national military budget was cut. Repealing this trash will at the very least allow some of those budget cuts to be restored, allowing the fine men and women of the Retired WerePenguins navy to have a proper sushi diet!

Kivisto

12-04-2007, 00:35

I do not believe I could be any more clear on this matter.

OOC: I know that your post came at almost exactly the same time as mine, but just to be clear....

Where, exactly, in MRB, does the CMRoB offer its arbitration services? I would somewhat agree that a pure UN gnome mediation crew might be handy. Where are they introduced in MRB? I seem to have missed them.

Rubina

12-04-2007, 00:45

Where, exactly, in MRB, does the CMRoB offer its arbitration services? I would somewhat agree that a pure UN gnome mediation crew might be handy. Where are they introduced in MRB? I seem to have missed them.Go on, read clause three...-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputesIn big, black letters it identifies the CMRoB as a mediation party.

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 00:58

Alright, fresh slate:

At last we have started seeing some excellent arguments come out against the proposal - likely due to undue care during drafting process. We don't know why the mistakes were made, but alas they were

So far, we've got two that we can so far assess as being fair and true:
1) It doesn't allow for arbitration
2) It's ability to mediate is granted if you stand on your head, cross your eyes, blink 3 times, and spin around very fast. I could argue it provides mediation services, but the path to get there is very long and by the time I got there, you could easily point out it's still crap.

We still don't accept the claim that it does nothing. We do accept some comments of saying that we could possibly insert something to force the border disputes to go through the UN before they engage in hostile conflicts - whether we should is another matter.

However, now we go back to one of my sticking points back when I was around before: voting for repeals because they made good arguments rather than because the effect is repeal. It is our belief that since repeals remain on the books and can't be repealed, the essence of their arguments has a more lasting effect upon the mindset of the United Nations body. If, indeed, these arguments are good enough to repeal this resolution, then we must turn to the resolution and look at it from the repeal's position

Determined to preserve global peace and stability through international initiatives to prevent unnecessary violence and bloodshed;

Pleased with the progress made so far in that area, in the shape of numerous resolutions seizing the United Nations and its membership of the matter, further promoting peaceful relations between member states, and mitigating the harmful effects of warfare on innocents;

Dismayed, however, that Mutual Recognition of Borders accomplishes next to nothing to that end;

Unimpressed by the resolution's establishment of a committee to review disputed borders, with no clear purpose, constitution, duties, or mandate that parties seeking its assistance agree to abide by its findings;

Concerned that wasteful and superfluous committees such as this will do nothing to promote global peace and security or prevent unnecessary loss of life in wars stemming from border disputes;

Disappointed that the resolution contains no check whatsoever against colonialist or imperialist aggressions;

Troubled that aggressor nations seeking to wage war on their neighbors and contribute to regional and international instability could conceivably circumvent the mandates of this article by simply disputing currently undisputed international borders;

Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them;

We hereby resolve, in witness of all here assembled, that Resolution #190: Mutual Recognition of Borders contributes little more than wasteful bureaucracy and pointless lip-service to the worthy goal of containing the imperialist ambitions of corrupt powers and protecting the peoples of disputed territories from the catastrophic effects of resulting border wars, and is therefore repealed.

At no point is either issue addressed. The bolded sections are all areas that I feel either misrepresent the resolution or have dismissed with my arguments.

It is our hope that if, indeed, the repeal fails as it looks like it might very well do, a different repeal focusing on the points I listed rather than the ability to dispute borders just for the hell of it or the lack of binding decisions will take its place - noting that the sentiment and service are both useful while the actual resolution falls short due to, ahem, poor wording. Then, with hope, the resolution will be appropriately replaced.

-------------------

*snip*

You tossed out my RL example, you and Cluich were the only one who felt it was worth tossing it out while the rest played ball. I dealt with Cluich and you can either accept my claim in that post or you can not. I will not waste my time on someone who will not accept a RL example as being proof-of-concept.

*snip*

Aside from Korea....the might of the UN has been employed against...who?...when? I'm not sure if I buy that - especially for a nothing country like Mali in a unimportant location like Western Africa.

OOC: I know that your post came at almost exactly the same time as mine, but just to be clear....

Where, exactly, in MRB, does the CMRoB offer its arbitration services? I would somewhat agree that a pure UN gnome mediation crew might be handy. Where are they introduced in MRB? I seem to have missed them.

Baaa....you know what I mean.

Quintessence of Dust

12-04-2007, 01:12

We still don't accept the claim that it does nothing.
You keep playing this tune, but it's not exactly the point, is it? There are plenty of resolutions that (pardon the grammar) don't do nothing, but that are still worthy of repeal. This resolution may well allow parties already totally amenable to mediation to solve disputes. Really useful, that.

But if a resolution entitled 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' allows nations completely free reign to dispute any borders, to the point of refusing to acknowledge the existence of other sovereign states, does not prevent them from annexing territories at will, and does not require any kind of neutral arbitration in border disputes, then frankly, whether it can incidentally dance the polka and crap ice cream, it's not going to be worth the fucking paper.

I've thought of a corollary: a resolution to prevent excessive logging, by giving any states that voluntarily commit to reducing their logging operations advice on how not to cut down trees.

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

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 01:27

I'm not going to pretend it is the best name, but I will claim it is a name that's fine. It provides (or at least should) a mechanism that enables two (or more) nations who disagree on a mutual border to get to a point of agreement on where the border is so that they can both recognize it. It isn't "Universal Recognition of Borders" which would basically require the entire UN to recognize all borders as they are so slated right now. It looks for mutual recognition - which can be just a handful of individuals or hundreds. I don't see how a resolution named "Mutual Recognition of Borders" means that its text is required to force warmongers to recognize the states around them and their designated borders.

Though seriously, the last time we tried debating that the title was bad for a resolution, that didn't work out too well. At least this title ATTEMPTS to match what it actually does.

Yes, a better title would be "Mediation of Border Disputes", but I'm sure we could find all sorts of names for all sorts of passed resolutions that would have been better. The name doesn't, IMO, mis-represent the resolution. With the minor variations in dialect, I just don't believe that such differences are, IMO, what makes it a valid or invalid title. So far, you're the only one that's suggested that this is what the title implies.

Quintessence of Dust

12-04-2007, 01:33

It provides (or at least should) a mechanism that enables two (or more) nations who disagree on a mutual border to get to a point of agreement on where the border is so that they can both recognize it.
Fairly important little bracket there, doncha think? Furthermore, yes, it does provide this - to those least in need of it. It offers nothing to those more in need, and further it offers nothing that cannot exist without the UN in place.
So far, you're the only one that's suggested that this is what the title implies.
Yeah, well, I get some pretty whacked out ideas: can you imagine! Thinking a resolution called 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' would do something to promote mutual recognition of borders. I must have been working through the superglue section of Office Depot or something.

Incidentally, you can't use the CMRoB. Maybe it's available for members, but there's no mention of nations that aren't members of the UN. Such as Forgottenlands.

-- George Madison

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 01:43

Fairly important little bracket there, doncha think? Furthermore, yes, it does provide this - to those least in need of it. It offers nothing to those more in need,

So you're going to get Militant #1560 to sit at the table how? Yes, it offers it to those who need it least, but that doesn't mean that the ones who need it least couldn't use it

and further it offers nothing that cannot exist without the UN in place.

I've addressed this several times. Just keep banging on the drums....

Yeah, well, I get some pretty whacked out ideas: can you imagine! Thinking a resolution called 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' would do something to promote mutual recognition of borders. I must have been working through the superglue section of Office Depot or something.

I've provided, I believe, an explanation as to why it does it. I'm sorry, but I just can't be bothered to get the superglue going so I can translate it more clearly for you.

Incidentally, you can't use the CMRoB. Maybe it's available for members, but there's no mention of nations that aren't members of the UN. Such as Forgottenlands.

-- George Madison

OOC: I believe I've mentioned before how OOC limitations have put Forgottenlands into a pickle about it's membership but still work from the IC perspective that Forgottenlands is a UN member. I'm sure you are well aware of the many members here who have bounced their membership all over the place while still acting as if they were in the UN because of the same OOC limitations. Can we please let that one go already?

On a side note, there's a possibility of an IC change in the near future that would finally get Forgottenlands into the UN OOCly, but that is still a ways down the pipeline.

Paradica

12-04-2007, 02:00

Incidentally, you can't use the CMRoB. Maybe it's available for members, but there's no mention of nations that aren't members of the UN. Such as Forgottenlands.
And this, by the way, is the one thing that annoys me about MRB that moved my vote to abstain rather than against. I realize that it's a limitation of the UN itself not the resolution and there was nothing that LAE could've done about it, but it still lessens the usefulness of MRB quite a bit.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

Quintessence of Dust

12-04-2007, 02:02

And this, by the way, is the one thing that annoys me about MRB that moved my vote to abstain rather than against. I realize that it's a limitation of the UN itself not the resolution and there was nothing that LAE could've done about it, but it still lessens the usefulness of MRB quite a bit.
Not true: other committees (including one set up by the author of MRoB) have made themselves available to non-members.

-- George Madison

Omigodtheykilledkenny

12-04-2007, 03:26

OOC: Explain to me something: by what authority does ANYTHING the RL United Nations arbitrates between nations is binding. Everything it does regarding mediation is a recommendation that may be accepted or rejected by the parties involved. Until you can explain that, I don't think there's really any point of me wasting time on that claim.[OOC: I so love how you ignored the rest of my arguments to dither about a matter of non-importance. What precisely does the RL UN have that the NSUN lacks? A Security Council, for instance? Chapter 7 of the UN Charter? U.S. military might? The NSUN has none of these, just a requirement that compliance is mandatory for all nations, so when the NSUN decides to impanel a committee, it better have some actual use other than "it might be a good idea to have your disputes mediated." The UN Free Trade Commission and the UN Demining Survey have actual ennumerated duties, and the resolutions that establish them are very clear as to what their purpose is. CMRoB, on the other hand, is only there to "clarify" borders and (possibly) mediate border disputes.

At no point is either issue addressed. The bolded sections are all areas that I feel either misrepresent the resolution or have dismissed with my arguments.[Alright, for the sake of laziness, or even a "clean slate," please point out to us exactly how all these points are either disingenuous or have been disproven.

It is our hope that if, indeed, the repeal fails as it looks like it might very well do, a different repeal focusing on the points I listed rather than the ability to dispute borders just for the hell of it or the lack of binding decisions will take its place - noting that the sentiment and service are both useful while the actual resolution falls short due to, ahem, poor wording. Then, with hope, the resolution will be appropriately replaced.[Oh, yes. Now you will support a repeal -- your previous statements about how wonderfully this resolution parallels RL border mediation and that it provides an effective method for hammering out disputes notwithstanding -- provided it focuses on the resolution's failure to clarify the committee's purpose, despite the fact that you have repeatedly argued the opposite, and even highlighted that point of the repeal as either refuted or misrepresentative of the original.

[By God, I think we're having a breakthrough! If only we had some powerless committee to mediate this dispute!]

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 03:56

Kenny, the reason my position changed is because people showed me I was misreading what it actually said. I still, however, support the purpose and intent of the resolution and what was supposed to be done by it. That's the difference.

This is not the first time this has happened. Hell, if you'll recall, I've changed my position on a resolution I was co-author on when Ausserland had pointed out an error in my position while it was at-vote

Omigodtheykilledkenny

12-04-2007, 04:38

Yet another non-response. Would you mind pointing out exactly how the repeal is misleading and why do not support it, despite the fact that you now agree the resolution is flawed?

Forgottenlands

12-04-2007, 05:09

No. I'm tired, I'm sick of this debate, and I really should've stopped on page 6. Actually, I should've stopped on Page 3, but I think the big tip off should've been on page 6 when my hair started falling out.

If you're desperate for an explanation, read my various posts throughout the debate....

Ausserland

12-04-2007, 07:17

OOC: Just a few quick OOC responses to points in Forgottenlands' OOC response to my OOC reply to his OOC request for OOC comments.... ;)

Ok....apparently my attempts to research this term ["subsidiarist"]have failed. Could you clarify?

I must admit to being a bit surprised that you've been unable to find information on this. A Google search on "subsidiarist" produced 189 links; AltaVista came up with 87. Subsidiarity is the principle that issues should be decided at the lowest level of government at which they can and will be properly handled. This assures that the decisions will be most responsive to the specific needs, values, and environments of the people affected. In this case, the matter of mediation should and most definitely can be determined by the nations involved. There is simply no need for NSUN involvement.

I'm not going to disagree that the service can be provided by other nations, regions or International bodies, nor that nations looking for an independent arbitrator will not be able to find one. So where is it that I disagree with you here?

In my 6th point. There are a number of nations - I would say at least 10% of the UN and possibly as high as 30% - have faith (however unfounded or pointless or illogical) in it being a neutral and fair body. This is a service that the UN can provide, but the only way to provide this service is to have an AUC responsible for it.

I think it's also fair to say that less than half are part of a different International body and a large percentage are not in an organized region. Yes, they could call upon another region, nation, international body, whathaveyou but why wouldn't they prefer to call upon something they are a full member of?

One or both nations may have a "history" in the organization which they fear might prejudice the mediation. An effective mediator must be a truly neutral and unbiased third party. This may require going outside their normal milleu. This is a determination that must be made by the specific nations involved if the mediation is to be considered fairly by them.

If we passed a resolution that forced people to do anything, the NatSovs would complain that we're pushing them into doing something they don't believe in/support/whatever. Really, I'm looking at this as a service that the UN could provide.

I really think this is a spurious argument. You of all people should be well aware that there have been a number of resolutions passed over the vigorous objection of proponents of national sovereignty. The objections of one segment of the membership on a resolution isn't a valid argument against it. Their reasons for objecting should be carefully considered. But just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it bad.

I have never heard this statement [about psychological blockers] in the past from you or anyone else.

I've raised this issue several times here and in discussions on other forums. Perhaps that was during your absence.

I think the issue between us is whether the resolution actually does anything worthwhile. You believe it does; I believe it doesn't. I figure we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Irixia

12-04-2007, 09:49

The Commonwealth of Irixia

The Commonwealth of Irixia is OPPOSED to repealing this resolution. It may be said that the council established to review disputed borders is superfluous, but that is no reason to abolish it completely. Instead, we must look at the council's function, and give it a specific purpose to work towards, as well as specific guidelines to work within. Also, we must find loopholes in the previous resolution to dispute borders and close them, and also bring in embargoes on those who unlawfully challenge international borders.

Yes, there may be many things wrong with the Board, but abolishing it would be folly. Abolishing the board would destroy what little protection remained for diminutive countries like this Commonwealth, and anarchy within this organisation would be the only result.

Again, I say, do not abolish, but FIX.

Josephine Lymane
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Irixian Ambassador to the United Nations

Smittytania

12-04-2007, 10:05

The Fiefdom of Smittytania believes that, despite the failings and inconsistencies of MRB, that its repeal without another piece of superceding legislation would leave a gap in the law and prevent the UN from mediating new border disputes in the interim. If another bill were drawn up, we would rethink our support of this resolution, but for now Smittytania will be voting No

Irixia

12-04-2007, 10:18

The Commonwealth of Irixia

The Fiefdom of Smittytania believes that, despite the failings and inconsistencies of MRB, that its repeal without another piece of superceding legislation would leave a gap in the law and prevent the UN from mediating new border disputes in the interim. If another bill were drawn up, we would rethink our support of this resolution, but for now Smittytania will be voting No

The Commonwealth of Irixia would also be in favour of establishing a new Board for the same purposes as the MRB if the MRB were to be abolished. However, leaving diminutive states vulnerable to attack is not in the Commonwealth's interests, and nor should in be in the interests of the United Nations.

Josephine Lymane
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Irixian Ambassador to the United Nations

Omigodtheykilledkenny

12-04-2007, 15:07

The Commonwealth of Irixia is OPPOSED to repealing this resolution. It may be said that the council established to review disputed borders is superfluous, but that is no reason to abolish it completely. Instead, we must look at the council's function, and give it a specific purpose to work towards, as well as specific guidelines to work within. Also, we must find loopholes in the previous resolution to dispute borders and close them, and also bring in embargoes on those who unlawfully challenge international borders.

Yes, there may be many things wrong with the Board, but abolishing it would be folly. Abolishing the board would destroy what little protection remained for diminutive countries like this Commonwealth, and anarchy within this organisation would be the only result.

Again, I say, do not abolish, but FIX.[/FONT]

The Fiefdom of Smittytania believes that, despite the failings and inconsistencies of MRB, that its repeal without another piece of superceding legislation would leave a gap in the law and prevent the UN from mediating new border disputes in the interim. If another bill were drawn up, we would rethink our support of this resolution, but for now Smittytania will be voting NoHate to burst your bubble guys, buy you need to repeal the old law first before you can rewrite it. Sorry (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Gobbannium

12-04-2007, 15:27

OOC: Just a few quick OOC responses to points in Forgottenlands' OOC response to my OOC reply to his OOC request for OOC comments.... ;)
OOC: and I hope you'll forgive me for shunting some of it back IC, since it's worth including in the debate.

In this case, the matter of mediation should and most definitely can be determined by the nations involved. There is simply no need for NSUN involvement.
We would entirely disagree: the parties embroiled in a dispute are the very ones who cannot sensibly mediate in that dispute. NSUN involvement at an international level is entirely appropriate, particularly where neighbouring nations or regional organisations cannot or will not mediate. The subsidiarity argument could resolve either way on that question, invoking either local knowledge or wide experience as the most important consideration in mediation; we tend to the latter.

One or both nations may have a "history" in the organization which they fear might prejudice the mediation. An effective mediator must be a truly neutral and unbiased third party. This may require going outside their normal milleu. This is a determination that must be made by the specific nations involved if the mediation is to be considered fairly by them.
This is a strong argument for the current resolution against those (ourselves included) who would prefer to see it more mandatory. That said, the UN may well be the most effective body for finding a neutral and unbiased third party, since there is a strong likelihood that any candidate suggested by one nation in the dispute will be perceived as biased by another. This would, to an extent, fulfil the duties placed on the committee without requiring it to be the one making binding decisions. Interesting.

I think the issue between us is whether the resolution actually does anything worthwhile. You believe it does; I believe it doesn't. I figure we'll just have to agree to disagree.
With us also.

For the record, since such declarations seem to be popular at the moment, we are voting against this repeal because while we accept that it is flawed (though in the light of the Ausserland delegation's points we are reconsidering whether those flaws are in fact strengths), we also accept the proposer's statement that he has no intention to fix those flaws, and since they are flaws of omission rather than commission, repealing the resolution will not make them go away.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

12-04-2007, 15:42

... And yet, fixing the flaws you admit exist in the original will not be possible until the resolution is repealed. If you think the law is bad and needs modifying, rejecting a repeal that is requisite for modification on the "intentions" of the author is not very constructive.

Cluichstan

12-04-2007, 16:07

She was referring to the UN.

Oh, drat.

I feel more comfortable knowing that the TPP is dead than knowing Gnomes run it. When Gnomes run it, I can go "The TPP ruled that Cluichstan is committing Genocide and have authorized a multinational force against him. Who's with me?"

BTW - let's hypothetically say that is true and that the situation is Cluichstan is actually the warmongering nation we threw in front of the TPP. Tell me, how many people do you hear saying "I'm in"?

Not too many, I would think. You know...*points skyward*...Death Star and all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Retired WerePenguins

12-04-2007, 16:14

If you believe in repeal and replace you really should support the repeal. The resolution really does nothing in its present form, thus repealing it, even without the replacement in place will do nothing. However when someone gets a replacement they will go through the whole process of getting a repeal through. Moreover they will have to convince the repeal and not replace that the repeal is worth it even though they might not like the replacement.

I firmly believe that meditation alone is not enough. What is needed is binding arbritration between the parties, so they can't wiggle out of the mediated settlement and start the whole problem going all over again. One could even argue that there are more major points of dispute between nations than just borders. But good luck trying to get this repealed when someone comes up with the perfect text. It's either now or next year ... (I won't say never but don't expect the repeal to pass next month once you have the killer replacement because that ain't going to happen.)

Smittytania

12-04-2007, 21:52

OOC: Does that mean that we can't write another bill and then add a clause saying:

a) "In the case of conflict between this bill and MRB, this bill should be interpreted as superceding those provisions" (not technically an amendment)
or
b) "This bill shall repeal/be interpreted as repealing MRB in its entirety"

Those seem like better options and don't appear to violate the text of the rules insofar as they don't change the text of MRB, other than to repeal it. I might be wrong, I'm new.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

12-04-2007, 22:25

Technical limitations of the game mean that resolutions can only resolve, and repeals can only repeal. You can't do both, and you can't amend. Now, can we please go back to discussing the actual repeal? Is the law bad? If so, repeal it. There is no justification for keeping a bad law on the books, just because some people cannot let go of their anti-repeal prejudice and choose to muddle the issue with talk of replacement.

Under current law, you can still terrorize border communities all you like, and nothing can stop you. Nothing changes if this is repealed. Future legislation that actually does address the situation might change the status quo, but this resolution doesn't. Therefore, repealing it does not additionally harm things, and it does actually help by getting wasteful legislation and bureaucracy out of the way.

Kivisto

13-04-2007, 00:14

Go on, read clause three...In big, black letters it identifies the CMRoB as a mediation party.

No, it says you could go to them for such things. You could go to DEFCON for mediation services too, but that doesn't make them a mediation group. TPP could pretty easily serve as some form of neutral third party mediator, but that is not what it was set out to do. CMRoB does not have mediation or arbitration in is creation charter. You could go to them, but that is not what they are there for. The gnomes would have to assist in that fashion out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm told that they have hearts. I just haven't seen proof that they are exceptionally compassionate or generous.

Akimonad

13-04-2007, 00:28

So, the boss told me to come in 'ere an vote fer us, eh wot?

'e's on two days holiday to historic Cleveland. 'e says the population there's mainly scribes from the Palentine. Sounds right nasty, 't does.

Right, so, votin'.

*press "For" button*

Yeah, so, we're votin' for, because Kenny, see, 'e's our regional founder and we likes supportin' 'im. And we rather like the proposal 'ere.

So, anybody care to give the Deputy Ambassador (that's me, that is.) a big 'earty welcome, eh?

Well, I'll just be sittin' 'ere in this 'ere box. The telly looks rather nice.

Submitted,
The Rt. Hon. Colonel James Thomas Joseph William Timothy Peter Theodore Eric Stephen Michael Daniel Horton
Deputy Ambassador to the UN
Akimonad
"I might as well be from Cobdenia, eh wot?"

NewCumberland

13-04-2007, 00:48

Beta Mogla

13-04-2007, 11:41

Vote no on 190!

Altanar

13-04-2007, 12:24

To not have a backup plan for the most pessimistic possibility is foolhardy, in our opinion.

Perhaps, but we've seen little yet that comes close to convincing us that MRoB represents a backup plan that anyone will actually use, or is any better than what nations can already do without it.

Do you have a suggestion or do you just wish to stand there and say "this isn't good enough"? If the latter, isn't SOMETHING better than nothing? Until I see a viable idea for replacement, I don't buy this argument.

I have no suggestions for MRoB, because our delegation views it as a fundamentally ambiguous and flawed piece of legislation which cannot be salvaged. In regards to border disputes, we'd favor legislation that clearly stated its authority to handle disputed borders, and that offered both incentives for nations to use the UN to resolve them, and perhaps a bit of force to cajole nations that didn't want to. These are all issues that could be hashed out in replacement legislation, if anyone wanted to draft some - but even then, as long as MRoB is on the books, such efforts would be moot.

BTW - before someone claims otherwise, you yourself admitted it was not nothing. Almost nothing is still something.

Almost nothing is something - but not very much of it. And our "support" for MRoB was very much tongue-in-cheek.

And again, I fail to see how the UN cannot act as the neutral third party in many cases - especially if the two nations in question are, indeed, nations that have faith in the operation of the United Nations.

The UN could very much act in that role - if MRoB had any teeth to it. It doesn't. And, in our opinion, weak and inherently flawed legislation that does little more than wag a disapproving finger and politely asks nations to come talk about resolving border disputes does quite a bit to damage the faith in the operation of the UN that nations may have, if they in fact have some.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Cluichstan

13-04-2007, 14:22

You could go to DEFCON for mediation services too...

Hmmm...you might have something there, Oskar...

Ardchoille

13-04-2007, 14:27

Ardchoille has kept the hell out of this debate because the whole concept of fixed borders for states that are themselves fluid gives all of us a multi-dimensional hangover. So we were just going to vote for the repeal and keep our collective mouth shut.

However, we cannot let pass unrecognised the kindness shown us by Rang Erman, Advisor to Prince Tang of Allech-Atreus, in defending our Secretary for Situations Like This against a perceived (though, we are sure, unintended) slur (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12533455&postcount=58).

Unfortunately, we must at the same time chide him for mentioning our excellent Secretary, Mr John McGonnagle, in the same breath as the Kennyite Creative Solutions Agency.

We wish to point out that Mr McGonnagle, unlike the Kennyites, has never employed a shoot-on-sight policy against UN Gnomes. Indeed, he welcomes them with open arms and crates of our best whiskey.

Furthermore, his job is not to avoid resolutions, but, in fact, to ensure that we adhere to them in every way possible so that we will maintain our status as an excessively compliant nation.

It is true that his minute examination of every word and punctuation mark may sometimes result in our conforming to the letter, rather than what some mistakenly believe to be the spirit, of individual resolutions.

But we do not criticise Mr McGonnagle for his punctilious application to his task, and we feel it unfair that, because of his exemplary conduct, he should be compared to a ... Kennyite ... agency.

I thank the members of the General Assembly for their indulgence in permitting me to clarify this point in the temporary absence of our President, Ms Reilly.

-- Bast,
Presidential Feline Advisor,
UN delegation of Ardchoille.

Palentine UN Office

13-04-2007, 17:07

Sen. Sulla is cheerfully sitting at his desk, cleaning his Colt 1911a and Drinking some Wild Turkey Rare Breed(TM). He briefly pauses his labors to address the masses.
"Ah, the repeal of the Mutual recognition of borders. Since we we're against the origional and haven't seen or heard anything here to change our minds, we are for the repeal. The orgional does bopkiss and should be removed as a waste of time, money, and space.. Now I'm back to work."
Sen. Sulla then resumes his labors while softly humming the Marine Corps Hymn.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

13-04-2007, 18:04

So what? You don't necessarily need to force nations to do something for a proposal to be effective. This way, you're respecting cultural differences while still applying an appropriate level of pressure on nations to liberalize their policies. Freedom of Assembly had little force beyond urging and recommendation, but it's still considered a fine resolution. Even I and my nasty sovereigntist cohorts supported that one.We find the application of this argument curiously inconsistent, since you are insisting that the opposite is the case in the repeal of Mutual Recognition of Borders.

A resolution's mandates are the things it does. Their strength is an indication of whether they are actually done or not. The difference, then, is exceedingly fine and we would argue irrelevant to our current discussion.

We observe once again that many of the arguments presented in your repeal motion, which we read and commented on during the drafting process if you recall, apply exactly to this proposal, specifically that its operational clauses are entirely non-mandatory. We have not yet seen a convincing argument put forward for either case which does not destroy the argument for the other. The difference between the two cases is that here we have the opportunity to argue for the proposal to be more than 'warm words', intending no offense to the hard work put in by the Karmicarian delegation, while there we have to choose between speculatively repealing such words on the off-chance that someone else may choose to introduce stronger ones, and leaving it as is while we consider what might be likely to be passed in this chamber.Forgive us for pointing this out, but you are dead wrong. There is a certain difference between Mild proposals that still have some tangible effect on member nations, and meaningless piles of fluff that do nothing at all. The resolution we are considering repealing is the latter, and it is a shame you cannot differentiate between the two. In this case, we have a resolution that does nothing but throw wasteful bureaucracy at a problem, with no mandate, jurisdiction, authority or purpose, and then throws in some pointless language about "applauding" efforts to recognize borders, and then urging nations to seek mediation. No specific instructions for member states, no real help to nations embroiled in border disputes. Nothing. The resolution's wastefulness is invested in its lack of purpose, not its strength level.

In fact:

The United Nations,

[stuff]

[stuff]

[more stuff]

Establishes the Committee for Border Resolution Management (CBRM), which shall be empowered to:
-hear cases from nations seeking its assistance in resolving disagreements over shared borders;
-investigate the validity of the claims of all nations party to a border dispute;
-collect evidence and call witnesses to give expert testimony pertaining to cases it is asked to hear;
-issue findings on all cases, and give specific recommendations to parties to resolve their disputes peaceably;

Strongly urges member nations disputing borders with other nations to seek assistance from the CBRM to resolve the dispute;

Strongly urges member nations to implement the recommendations of the CBRM on cases that apply to them;

[etc.]There. You see? Still a Mild-strength proposal, and much, much more effective than the current resolution. The committee has a clear purpose, listed duties, appropriate jurisdiction, and real authority; and specific instructions are given to member states on border conflicts. It may not force nations to resolve their disputes, but since when did anybody need to force people to do anything in order to apply an appropriate amount of international pressure? In fact, if this is repealed, I may well formulate this idea into a full proposal. But this resolution needs to be repealed first.

Your move, replacement-wankers.

Akimonad

13-04-2007, 21:41

Mutual Recongnition of Borders is a vital tool that the UN can use to stamp out frustration among many disputed territories and make the world a better place. To repeal this would mean to turn back on liberty and peace amoung waring countries.

Please vote nay.

Vote no on 190!

Aww, bollocks. My statements are gonna be blocked out or forgotten because o' these rampagin' newbies. Why, if I had me gun with me...

They could at least try to make an argument. This is really not mor'n a hit-and-run, eh wot?

They say there things and then sit back and say know more, thinkin' they've enlightened us with their wisdom and that their opinion will have an effect on the voting on the resolution.

But enough rantin' from me, seein' as I'm not in a position to rant...

We are for this repeal because the borders of our puppets are rather fluid, dependin' on how we're feelin', right? Nobody ought to tell us how we're to see borders.

I personally read the resolution bein' repealed, and, well, far as I can see, alls it does is sets up a committee. And I don't like the mention of a multiverse, whatever the rubbish that is.

But I'm not a Doctor of Political Sciences like the bossman, so if he comes 'round 'ere tomorrow, I'll make sure to get him to read it.

I also rather spotted what I'd venture to say is a loophole. MRoB apparently states that nations only need to recognize undisputed borders. How's that determined? Couldn't I just say all my borders are disputed, and subvert the whole thing?

Submitted,
The Rt. Hon. Colonel James Thomas Joseph William Timothy Peter Theodore Eric Stephen Michael Daniel Horton
Deputy Ambassador to the UN
Akimonad

P.S.: Erm, I'm still rather nervous as I'm new 'ere. I enjoy some recognition of my viewpoint, 'twere it be postitive or negative.

Gilabad

14-04-2007, 02:59

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Hellao!!! It is me again...Borat Sogadiev!! This proposal is a very niiice!!! I think that you would be an "Uzbek" to vote against it!! This gets rid of the frivilous restrictions that have been placed upon conflicting nations to be able to punish the indigenous people for giving up their troop positions, placing IEDs in their portapotties, and stealing provisions from supply convoys!! This is an important step to reform the ways that war is fought. I salute the founder of this proposal!!! (PS, If I am not success, then I shall be execute...)

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

Love and esterel

14-04-2007, 12:03

...Establishes the Committee for Border Resolution Management (CBRM), which shall be empowered to:
-hear cases from nations seeking its assistance in resolving disagreements over shared borders;
-investigate the validity of the claims of all nations party to a border dispute;
-collect evidence and call witnesses to give expert testimony pertaining to cases it is asked to hear;
-issue findings on all cases, and give specific recommendations to parties to resolve their disputes peaceably;

Strongly urges member nations disputing borders with other nations to seek assistance from the CBRM to resolve the dispute;

Strongly urges member nations to implement the recommendations of the CBRM on cases that apply to them;...

There. You see? Still a Mild-strength proposal, and much, much more effective than the current resolution. The committee has a clear purpose, listed duties, appropriate jurisdiction, and real authority; and specific instructions are given to member states on border conflicts. It may not force nations to resolve their disputes, but since when did anybody need to force people to do anything in order to apply an appropriate amount of international pressure? In fact, if this is repealed, I may well formulate this idea into a full proposal. But this resolution needs to be repealed first.

Your move, replacement-wankers.

We are delighted to hear such constructive criticism from the delegation of Omigodtheykilledkenny.
We think this added descrition about the nature of the "help" and the always-mild-but-stronger language is pretty good and we also notice happily that this text by the author of the repeal is in contradiction to almost all of the arguments presented in this repeal.

We would like also to emphasize once again the importance for international economy and trade of clause -5- about border crossing points which seems to have been forgotten in this debate.

So, Omigodtheykilledkenny, if you want to go, hope this can help, my turn:
Determined to preserve global peace and stability through international initiatives to prevent unnecessary violence and bloodshed;

Convinced that this body can have a role in resolving borders disputes,

Desiring to improve “#190 Mutual Recognition of Borders” with the following:

-1- To give clearer purpose, listed duties and appropriate jurisdiction to the CMRoB, such as:

-hear cases from nations seeking its assistance in resolving disagreements over shared borders;
-investigate the validity of the claims of all nations party to a border dispute;
-collect evidence and call witnesses to give expert testimony pertaining to cases it is asked to hear;
-issue findings on all cases, and give specific recommendations to parties to resolve their disputes peaceably;

-2- To give stronger authority, while still non-mandatory, to the CMRoB, by urging member nations disputing borders with other nations to seek its assistance and urging parties to implement its recommendations.

Fully aware that the only possible legal path to improve #190 with these important provisions is to repeal it first and then submit a new proposal including them,

REPEALS Resolution #190 “Mutual Recognition of Borders”

NationStates Jolt Archive

FAILED: Repeal 'Mutual Recognition of Borders' [Official Topic]