NationStates Jolt Archive

MRB is a somewhat useless resolution, but it does need to be replaced. Here is an idea for one.

Global Disarmament, Mild

The NationStates United Nations

COMMENDING the United Nations for its devotion to international concerns,

NOTING WITH DISAPPOINTMENT that there are many border disputes between Nationstates,

FEARING that these border disputes could erupt to violent conflict that could engulf the two parties,

DESIRING for an effective end to these border disputes.

HEREBY

1. GRANTS The Permenanta Panel the authority to arbitrate border disputes.
(a)For TPP to arbitrate on a border dispute, it must have the consent of both parties to do such an arbitration.
(b)TPP shall decide on the outcome of these disputes in accordance with UN law.

2. STATES that all parties to the conflict, after consenting to arbitration with TPP to respect and abide by the resulting decision.

3. STRONGLY URGES all nations to submit their grievances to the TPP as a substitute for open conflict in the interest of world peace and security.

I like it better than the original.

MRB is a somewhat useless resolution, but it does need to be replaced.

Uh no, no it doesn't.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is as useless as the original, and completely misses every point made in its repeal (which has not yet passed in any case).

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

This is as useless as the original, and completely misses every point made in its repeal (which has not yet passed in any case).

Not every point has been missed; the arbitration, once made, is at least binding now. We would concur, however, that this much too weak a resolution as it stands, hence our opinion that it is well worth having the discussion in advance of the repeal of Mutual Recognition of Borders, should that unhappy event occur. We would prefer to see it toughened and given a greater requirement to act in the case of UN member disputes, much though we imagine the supporters of national sovereignty will dislike the idea.

While we appreciate the proposer's intent to avoid creating yet another committee, we feel that this is an inappropriate use of the Pretenama Panel (which we assume is what you intended to reference). The job of trying a genocide case is far removed from disentangling generations of precedent as to exactly where any given border runs.

Not every point has been missed; the arbitration, once made, is at least binding now.
But there is no requirement to use the arbitration, and hence we doubt any state would realistically risk doing so if being forced to accept a disadvantageous ruling were a possible consequence. So the effect would be the same in the long run.

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

Alright, I understand the problem. Consider this idea on hold until after the discussion.