NationStates Jolt Archive

Realizing that the UN has the power to dictate laws to all nations that voluntarily participate within its organization;

Believing that the UN should only be able to create laws based on protecting the rights of nations to govern their own people;

Also believing that the UN should not be able to put restrictions on nations based on ideologies or personal opinions;

Noting that resolution #49 declares the rights to individual nations but does not put any rules on the UN itself;

Proposes a constitution for the UN:

Section I) Duties of the UN

1) The UN must attempt to create an environment that provides equal rights and freedoms for all of its members.

2) The UN must take into account all aspects of an issue before passing a resolution.

Section II) Rights of the UN

1) The UN may only pass resolutions with the intent to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
a. This includes but is not limited to protection of neutral parties in times of war, protection of minorities that lack representation, and protection of individual rights and freedoms of nations and people.

2) The UN may not pass resolutions based on ideology or personal opinion that would restrict nations to govern themselves in ways that they see fit.

3) The UN may not put restrictions on nations that do not intend to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of nations and their citizens.

4) The UN may not try to gain totalitarian control over the nations that take part in its organization.

5) The UN may not put restrictions on its members in regard to voting for resolutions.

Section III) Exceptions in Times of Crisis

1) If a single party within the UN attempts to gain total control over the voting process through devious means then resolutions may be passed putting restrictions on such events from happening.

2) If a nation gains a much greater military control then all other nations with the intention of usurping control over said nations then resolutions may be passed preventing such action.


(OOC: my first attempt at a resolution i see as vital to an organization such as the UN. I realize it is missing alot and therefor i need a few suggestions)

You want a suggestion, read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and try again. Having said that, I'll add that you're not the first person to try to write a UN Constitution/Charter and no one else has been able to write one that doesn't violate the rules either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is a brave attempt at something we are not certain is even legal, and with which we do not wholly agree. In that spirit, we shall attempt to critique this.
Believing that the UN should only be able to create laws based on protecting the rights of nations to govern their own people;
Tactically, this clause may be an error. It sets the UN constitution firmly in the National Sovereignty camp, and those of us who believe that sovereignty is a secondary issue will not agree with it. It will certainly polarise support.

Also believing that the UN should not be able to put restrictions on nations based on ideologies or personal opinions;
This is a somewhat dangerous statement if you are not clear as to what you consider an ideology.

Section I) Duties of the UN

1) The UN must attempt to create an environment that provides equal rights and freedoms for all of its members.

2) The UN must take into account all aspects of an issue before passing a resolution.
While we applaud the sentiment, we suspect it would be better to specify that the environment to provide equality and freedom is the General Assembly, and possibly committees and attendant organisations. It is certainly the General Assembly that should be required to take account of all aspects of an issue; whether we reach it or not, fair consideration is the only reasonable way to make law.

Section II) Rights of the UN

1) The UN may only pass resolutions with the intent to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
a. This includes but is not limited to protection of neutral parties in times of war, protection of minorities that lack representation, and protection of individual rights and freedoms of nations and people.

2) The UN may not pass resolutions based on ideology or personal opinion that would restrict nations to govern themselves in ways that they see fit.
Our biggest problem is that a straightforward reading of this puts clauses 1 and 2 in direction contradiction with each other. That which protects the rights of individuals inevitably trespasses upon the freedom of nations to govern themselves, and it would be a poor lawyer who could not argue that a civil rights resolution was based on ideology. This is what lies behind our earlier unease at the prohibition on ideology, unless the term itself is more closely defined.

3) The UN may not put restrictions on nations that do not intend to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of nations and their citizens.
This clause is somewhat confused, but we take it to mean that you are speaking of the intent of a resolution rather than the intent of a nation; this is a dangerous thing to consider. If we read aright, this would ban the UN from passing any further resolutions concerning environmental or trade issues, which would be unfortunate.

4) The UN may not try to gain totalitarian control over the nations that take part in its organization.
Emotive language such as 'totalitarian control' is frequently counter-productive. Apart from which, any competant lawyer could argue the voluntary nature of membership against accusations of totalitarianism, rendering the clause moot. We appreciate the sentiment, but this does not seem to be the best way to go about obtaining such an assurance.

5) The UN may not put restrictions on its members in regard to voting for resolutions.
We heartily approve, though we suspect this may trespass rather far into the realms of game mechanics.

Section III) Exceptions in Times of Crisis

1) If a single party within the UN attempts to gain total control over the voting process through devious means then resolutions may be passed putting restrictions on such events from happening.
We seriously dislike the phrase 'devious means', which offers many hostages to fortune. In reality, if someone had gained control over the voting process then permitting resolutions to be passed to control it is the least effective control mechanism possible; after all, someone in control of the voting process would have to allow the resolution to be passed themselves, and unless that was the point of their taking control we cannot see that happening.

2) If a nation gains a much greater military control then all other nations with the intention of usurping control over said nations then resolutions may be passed preventing such action.
The first 'then' should be a 'than', we think. Second, we cannot see how a resolution is going to stop a military force. Paper makes poor armour.

UNR #49 coupled with a few other documents has been deemed to combine to be sort of our unofficial Charter. It doesn't define what direction we should take, just what our powers are both as members and as a body.

That hasn't stopped some honest attempts, but you have to be cautious with going about it. The UN is polarized on most issues and even how the UN should operate.

OOC: Also remember that this is a game and either limiting our abilities to operate or saying we should put more priority on something we've generally ignored is not going to be popular.

To Flibbleites: I read over that thread very carefully and tried to make sure every bit of my proposal did not violate any part of that. If there is a single part that does violate the rules please tell me and I will either take it out or edit it such that it does not violate the rules.

To Gobbannium: Thank you very much for your input. I can see your point on some of your cases and I will change my wording around to make it clearer. Though some of the points you made were clauses I spent extra time on to make the wording perfect. Allow me to defend the clauses that you pointed out as wrong in some way.

Tactically, this clause may be an error. It sets the UN constitution firmly in the National Sovereignty camp, and those of us who believe that sovereignty is a secondary issue will not agree with it. It will certainly polarise support.
The part which you are speaking of is in fact an opinion of mine and therefore I prefaced it with believing. This is just the intro to my proposed resolution and therefore is completely made up of opinion. Whether you agree or not I can not change.

This is a somewhat dangerous statement if you are not clear as to what you consider an ideology.
I will probably change the wording on this one as ideology can mean too many different things. Thank you for pointing this out. When writing this I was thinking of a single definition of a personal ideology.

I agree with you on changing the wording to General Assembly. It suits the proposal much better.

Our biggest problem is that a straightforward reading of this puts clauses 1 and 2 in direction contradiction with each other. That which protects the rights of individuals inevitably trespasses upon the freedom of nations to govern themselves, and it would be a poor lawyer who could not argue that a civil rights resolution was based on ideology. This is what lies behind our earlier unease at the prohibition on ideology, unless the term itself is more closely defined.
I somewhat disagree with you here. One example of a fundamental freedom in my mind is the right to not be killed for any reason. Making a law restricting that sort of behavior would be protecting that right. So restricting a nation to govern itself in the effort to protect individual freedom should be allowed. The second clause deals with nations saying that they can’t build buildings over 30' high or some other type of resolution with intentions purely aimed at restriction. This would not protect any fundamental rights or freedoms and so would violate the resolution.

This clause is somewhat confused, but we take it to mean that you are speaking of the intent of a resolution rather than the intent of a nation; this is a dangerous thing to consider. If we read aright, this would ban the UN from passing any further resolutions concerning environmental or trade issues, which would be unfortunate. I could not figure out how to write that clause without the double negative and This was actually one of the main clauses I was hoping for some constructive criticism on. I wrote this so that it would only speak on the intent of resolutions. UNR #49 already deals with nations so I tried to leave that area alone.

Emotive language such as 'totalitarian control' is frequently counter-productive. Apart from which, any competant lawyer could argue the voluntary nature of membership against accusations of totalitarianism, rendering the clause moot. We appreciate the sentiment, but this does not seem to be the best way to go about obtaining such an assurance.
to•tal•i•tar•i•an /toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
When writing this clause I chose my words very carefully and knew exactly what they meant when writing this clause.

Section 2 article 5 was merely a precursor to section 3 article 1 which I placed in there trying to deter a region from gaining over 50% of the vote and controlling the UN. A far-fetched conspiracy theory, maybe, but still vital.

section 3 article 2 would allow nations to unite all of their armies to stop a great single army. Another far-fetched idea but again still vital in my opinion.

Again thanks you for your constructive criticism though.

To Forgottenlands: What this resolution is trying to accomplish is to further establish what powers the UN should and should not have. If I allowed personal opinion in my writing and presented a direction then I apologize as that was not my intention. If you would please point out the clauses where I do present a personal direction please do so and I will happily change them.

I will edit the resolution tomorrow and with the first "markups." it is to late for me at the moment and my mind is starting to fade.

So, if this passes and these sweeping changes are placed in effect by the UN, how are you going to rationalize the stat changes in every single member nation?

And how is this not a gross violation of the following?Game Mechanics

[...]Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To Forgottenlands: What this resolution is trying to accomplish is to further establish what powers the UN should and should not have. If I allowed personal opinion in my writing and presented a direction then I apologize as that was not my intention. If you would please point out the clauses where I do present a personal direction please do so and I will happily change them.

Certainly

Section I) Duties of the UN

1) The UN must attempt to create an environment that provides equal rights and freedoms for all of its members.

Section II) Rights of the UN

1) The UN may only pass resolutions with the intent to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
a. This includes but is not limited to protection of neutral parties in times of war, protection of minorities that lack representation, and protection of individual rights and freedoms of nations and people.

2) The UN may not pass resolutions based on ideology or personal opinion that would restrict nations to govern themselves in ways that they see fit.

3) The UN may not put restrictions on nations that do not intend to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of nations and their citizens.

The UN doesn't have a specific agenda nor can you set one.

EDIT: Not to mention that any agenda you suggest IS your personal opinion of what the UN should be about. There have been more than a few theocracies who have drafted and voted upon proposals based upon their own ideology - violating #2 for Rights of the UN. There's a major issue with #3 insofar as the division of the IntFed and NatSov, while weakening as of late, still exists and you are putting an answer that would anger the IntFeds and I'm not sure it would satisfy the NatSovs entirely.

The UN Constitution would dictate how the UN itself is run. Wouldn't that be part of the game code? I don't think one is really necessary, the best you could do would be try to convince the administrators to change the way the UN works.

I've been contemplating an idea along the lines of a UN constitution, which I believe would be legal. I don't have a draft, but the idea was basically the UN rules in proposal form

Oh....hell no.

The absolute last thing we need is a UN Charter, simply because we already have one. The Mod Rules are our UN Charter, and not being a resolution, they can handle everything game related without breaking any rules.

Not to mention Section II) Rights of the UN *sip

This section alone, aside from being impossible to enforce, limits a massive load of things to write about. Half the point of the UN is the ability to write resolutions about almost anything, and then debate it. I think the last thing any of us want is to restrict the types and purposes of resolutions any further.