NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Allech-Atreus

Descrption: In order to preserve the neutrality of the United Nations regarding international politics and inter-state conflicts, and to ensure the integrity of member states;

The United Nations hereby DECLARES;

1. This body shall neither raise nor employ, as a singular government body, any military forces, nor contribute, as an international organization, forces or personnel to a state's military;

2. That member states shall neither raise nor marshal any military forces for service under the auspices of UN command;

3. That member states shall not look to the UN for law enforcement capabilities;

DECREES that member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force;

STRESSES that nothing in this document shall be construed as to deny the right of member states to form military coalitions for purposes of peacekeeping, stabilization and delivering humanitarian aid in nations that request such assistance; or where previous legislation has otherwise specified.

This is based in large part on Kenny's Prohibition of UN Military, which failed a while back. I decided to reword, add some clauses, and had it over at DEFCON for a brief runner.

I am looking for constructive changes to the text, not statements of support or opposition; that's why this is in the drafting phase.

You may now commence shredding.

EDIT: Updated to include Rubinas', Gobbaniums', and Forgottenlords' suggestions.

I don't like the name. Didn't like Kenny's either. I think an unclear name is the single biggest barrier to success in the Approval stage.

What about UN Neutrality in War?

Sure, we can run with that. I think part of the failure of "Prohibition of UN Military" was it's name, we had hundreds of drivebys thinking it was banning member armies.

We can just use UN Neutrality in War. If you'd like to change the thread title to reflect that, Fris, be my guest.

Couldn't marshaling forces under the UN banner be allowed under the jurisdiction of TPP? I could be wrong, but I thought that's what Humanitarian Intervention was all about.

Eon does seem to suggest that TPP has a sort of judicial power in the case of genocide, but the resolution makes no use military force or law enforcement agency. Sole power for adjudication of genocide lies with TPP, so I don't think that this is an instance where a prohibition on UN armies/police would conflict.

As to Humanitatarian Intervention, the reso states that the enforcement will be a multilateral force acting under the UN's authorisation. I wasn't around for the debate of the resolution, so I am not familiar with the legality debates, but I would wager that it was specficially constructed to get around the "No UN Army" rule. This resolution is an attempt to provide a solid legal background for that rule.

You've brought up a good point, though. Would this resolution be on contradiction of HI or Eon? I don't think it would be, because it specifically bans a UN-led military while HI only allows for UN-authorised military actions. In a sense, HI leaves the enforcement up to individual states, which need not attend to the UN for the prosecution of their actions.

Lack of "No UN Army" rule.....

The impression I got just a few weeks ago from someone who claimed to be from that era was that it wasn't a concern. He actually suggested expansion of the TPP's powers which I was fairly sure would be out. They weren't maneuvering around the rule, there was nothing to maneuver around. HI would be as illegal as TPP even without the HoC and amendment rules today.

Also, UN authorized operations still fly under the UN flag. Even more importantly, waving a piece of paper saying "the TPP has approved operation X" should be classified as "raising an army under the UN Banner"

You might want to pull the UNR #110 trick and say "subject to the permissions by previously passed UN Resolutions while they remain in effect" or something to that extent.

Lack of "No UN Army" rule.....

The impression I got just a few weeks ago from someone who claimed to be from that era was that it wasn't a concern. He actually suggested expansion of the TPP's powers which I was fairly sure would be out. They weren't maneuvering around the rule, there was nothing to maneuver around. HI would be as illegal as TPP even without the HoC and amendment rules today.

That would explain it, then.

Also, UN authorized operations still fly under the UN flag. Even more importantly, waving a piece of paper saying "the TPP has approved operation X" should be classified as "raising an army under the UN Banner"

I agree, but at this point there's not much we can do about it.

You might want to pull the UNR #110 trick and say "subject to the permissions by previously passed UN Resolutions while they remain in effect" or something to that extent.

I'll add a phrase to that effect.

One problem I ran across was weasel wording. I don't really feel "under the UN banner" is an effective way of saying "UN don't get no army," but it was used in previous attempts and I was recommended against stating outright that the UN was prevented from taking a certain action.

The rules do state that a resolution may not prevent future UN actions, as was demonstrated in the recent "UN Constitution" thread, but I wonder if that prohibition works if what is being enjoined is already illegal.

Can I not simply state "The UN may neither raise nor employ, as a singular government body, any military forces?"

My other concern is non-state actors, such as mercenaries, pirates, etc. Is a clause enjoining this body from entering into contracts with non-state actors a possibility?

so nations in the UN can't have an army?

heeeckkk no http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9525/gundamfenixyt7.png

Can I not simply state "The UN may neither raise nor employ, as a singular government body, any military forces?"
The only problem would be if that were seen to be in contradiction to the requirement of Humanitarian Intervention. As long as the UN is still in a position to formally approve of military actions of an alliance of member nations, which we think your wording to allow, that should be fine.

My other concern is non-state actors, such as mercenaries, pirates, etc. Is a clause enjoining this body from entering into contracts with non-state actors a possibility?
If they are considered military forces in any manner, then you already prevent the UN from raising or employing them. If they are no so considered, might it be simpler to explicitly define them as such for the purposes of this resolution? You will have to define 'non-state actors' quite carefully in any case, lest you accidentally prohibit the UN from entering into contracts with (say) aid agencies.

Would you be prepared to consider making explicit allowance for UN-blessed peace-keeping actions by one or more member nations? We are aware that this is a large can of worms to be opening, but the advantages of being able to act from a supra-nationally neutral position are not things we would wish to forbid in passing. We have in mind occasions where the intent is to avoid and suppress conflict, such as in the case of easing civil unrest in a fragmenting nation, rather than anything more aggressive.

The only problem would be if that were seen to be in contradiction to the requirement of Humanitarian Intervention. As long as the UN is still in a position to formally approve of military actions of an alliance of member nations, which we think your wording to allow, that should be fine.

Yes, I see what you mean. I don't think it'll be a problem, but I'll keep it in mind.


If they are considered military forces in any manner, then you already prevent the UN from raising or employing them. If they are no so considered, might it be simpler to explicitly define them as such for the purposes of this resolution? You will have to define 'non-state actors' quite carefully in any case, lest you accidentally prohibit the UN from entering into contracts with (say) aid agencies.

I'll add the word "paramilitary" to distuinguish between non-state actors like mercenary groups and terrorist organizations.

Would you be prepared to consider making explicit allowance for UN-blessed peace-keeping actions by one or more member nations? We are aware that this is a large can of worms to be opening, but the advantages of being able to act from a supra-nationally neutral position are not things we would wish to forbid in passing. We have in mind occasions where the intent is to avoid and suppress conflict, such as in the case of easing civil unrest in a fragmenting nation, rather than anything more aggressive.

I'm afraid that would turn this into a resolution about peacekeeping and not about what it is: a resolution preventing the UN from having a military force. I think that as long as I have the proscription on multilateral alliances in there, it won't become a problem.

so nations in the UN can't have an army?

heeeckkk no http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9525/gundamfenixyt7.png

How the heck did you interpret it as "The nations in the UN can't have an army"?

so nations in the UN can't have an army?

heeeckkk no http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9525/gundamfenixyt7.png

Uhhhh...

No. that's not even close to what I wrote. The UN can't have an army.

so nations in the UN can't have an army?

heeeckkk no http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9525/gundamfenixyt7.png

If I understand it correctly, UN nations certainly CAN have an army. In fact, they could still form military alliances with each other. They just can't form an army under the direct control of the UN.

How the heck did you interpret it as "The nations in the UN can't have an army"?

By not reading it.

If I understand it correctly, UN nations certainly CAN have an army. In fact, they could still form military alliances with each other. They just can't form an army under the direct control of the UN.

See? This guy read it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Allech-Atreus

Descrption: In order to preserve the neutrality of the United Nations regarding international politics and inter-state conflicts, and to ensure the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states;

The United Nations hereby DECLARES;

1. That member states shall neither raise nor marshal any military forces under the auspices of UN command; nor shall they contribute officers and officials to serve in a military capacity;

2. That member states shall not look to the UN for law enforcement capabilities, it being in the best interest of the body to remain politically and legally neutral in the affairs of its members;

DECREES that member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force;

STRESSES that nothing in this document shall be construed as to deny the right of member states to form military coalitions for purposes of peacekeeping, stabilization and delivering humanitarian aid in nations that request such assistance; or where previous legislation has otherwise specified.

I tweaked the wording and added a few phrases.

Can you keep the OP up-to-date with the most recent revision?

I'm going to do that with substantive changes. The reason I posted a second draft is for the size of the changes- I might not retain them in the working draft.

Descrption: In order to preserve the neutrality of the United Nations regarding international politics and inter-state conflicts,Description is misspelled. With regard to neutrality, the UN is hardly neutral regarding international politics; we choose sides on issues all the time.
and to ensure the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states;It doesn't really though, does it? I know that an armed UN is a NatSovs worst nightmare ;), but the logic doesn't go the other way. The non-existence of a UN military doesn't preserve either sovereignty or integrity.

Not trying to be difficult, and I'm having trouble at the moment coming up with something better, but I figure now's the time to poke the soft underbelly for weakness in the proposal.
..nor shall they contribute officersA tad unclear as to who "they" is? The UN won't contribute officers to a member's military... or ... states shall not designate officers in a (non-existant) UN military?2. ... it being in the best interest etc. etc.The dependent clause there sounds more like it belongs in the preamble.

What's lost in this version is the basic idea that the UN is barred from having a military or policing force. Perhaps to avoid the problem of not being able to bar future action of the UN, it would be better to structure it as the UN expressing its will to never act militarily whether in disputes between states (member or non-member) or to enforce an ideology.Can I not simply state "The UN may neither raise nor employ, as a singular government body, any military forces?"Clear and direct works, though I would use "will" instead of "may". Using this and adding in the portion about "nor contribute, as an international organization, forces or personnel to a state's military" would strengthen the first specific under your declaration clause.

Nice clauses on states being able to have their own militaries. Maybe the invader/defender players won't be confused this time. Just call me an idealist. :)

Description is misspelled. With regard to neutrality, the UN is hardly neutral regarding international politics; we choose sides on issues all the time.

Ah, well, it won't say "description" when I submit it. That's added.

when I say neutrality, I mean relative objectivity regarding dealings between member states. The UN doesn't care what nations do with the residual powers left over from UN resolutions, hence it is a neutral party. That's why it's a court of appeals for genocide or humanitarian intervention.

It doesn't really though, does it? I know that an armed UN is a NatSovs worst nightmare ;), but the logic doesn't go the other way. The non-existence of a UN military doesn't preserve either sovereignty or integrity.

But it's still illegal, natsov or no, for the UN to have an army. This isn't a question of NatSov, either- territorial soveriegnty is not the same as NatSov. I'm just looking for an IC legal way to back up the no army rule.

Not trying to be difficult, and I'm having trouble at the moment coming up with something better, but I figure now's the time to poke the soft underbelly for weakness in the proposal.
Poke away!
A tad unclear as to who "they" is? The UN won't contribute officers to a member's military... or ... states shall not designate officers in a (non-existant) UN military?
The idea behind that clause is that the member nations shall provide neither troops nor the means to command troops to the UN. I saw two possibilities: the UN drafts member's forces for a UN army, or the UN uses a group of officers to lead a "coalition" of member's forces. I though it would be clear who "they" were since I specified "member nations" in the clause. I'll fiddle with the wording a bit.

The dependent clause there sounds more like it belongs in the preamble.

I'll see what I can do.

What's lost in this version is the basic idea that the UN is barred from having a military or policing force. Perhaps to avoid the problem of not being able to bar future action of the UN, it would be better to structure it as the UN expressing its will to never act militarily whether in disputes between states (member or non-member) or to enforce an ideology.

Yes, that would be an excellent suggestion. I was hoping that by making it illegal for member states to contribute forces in any way, I could cut the UN from having a source for troops- unlike gnomes and committee members, soldiers just don't pop out of nowhere. I will mull over the wording.

Clear and direct works, though I would use "will" instead of "may". Using this and adding in the portion about "nor contribute, as an international organization, forces or personnel to a state's military" would strengthen the first specific under your declaration clause.

Yes, good suggestion. I'll look at horning it in.

Nice clauses on states being able to have their own militaries. Maybe the invader/defender players won't be confused this time. Just call me an idealist. :)

One can only hope!

I'll make the changes sometime soon. Thank you.

But it's still illegal, natsov or no, for the UN to have an army. This isn't a question of NatSov, either- territorial soveriegnty is not the same as NatSov. I'm just looking for an IC legal way to back up the no army rule.
We fear that the representative of Rubina is correct; this phrase doesn't actually justify the no army rule and may cause unnecessary ill-feeling in potential supporters. Since the first phrase concerning preserving the UN's neutrality is entirely sufficient reason in our eyes, we'd suggest just dropping the potential controversy.

The idea behind that clause is that the member nations shall provide neither troops nor the means to command troops to the UN. I saw two possibilities: the UN drafts member's forces for a UN army, or the UN uses a group of officers to lead a "coalition" of member's forces. I though it would be clear who "they" were since I specified "member nations" in the clause. I'll fiddle with the wording a bit.
Would it be simpler to phrase from the point of view of the UN rather than of the member states? Something of the nature of the UN not raising any armed force or allowing any such force to be raised or lead in its name? We know that this rides rough-shod over our earlier plea to leave the option open for using the UN's neutrality for useful peacekeeping, but it is the best we can think of on a few minutes perusal. We shall attempt to think of something more useful.

We fear that the representative of Rubina is correct; this phrase doesn't actually justify the no army rule and may cause unnecessary ill-feeling in potential supporters. Since the first phrase concerning preserving the UN's neutrality is entirely sufficient reason in our eyes, we'd suggest just dropping the potential controversy.

I'll look it over. I'm seeing potential conflicts in my head already, so it might be fore the best.

Would it be simpler to phrase from the point of view of the UN rather than of the member states? Something of the nature of the UN not raising any armed force or allowing any such force to be raised or lead in its name?
There is nothing more I would like to do, however UN rules state that I cannot explicitly forbid the UN from doing x action. I'm not sure if codifying a ruleset would be enough to gloss over that, but I can try and add a specific clause.

We know that this rides rough-shod over our earlier plea to leave the option open for using the UN's neutrality for useful peacekeeping, but it is the best we can think of on a few minutes perusal. We shall attempt to think of something more useful.

I do not think that the UN can ever be an effective peacekeeper, anyway. The peacekeeping option is not very important to me, because the UN could never have enforcement for peacekeeping efforts whether or not this proposal would pass. I would suggest that it is a moot point.

Bump.

I included suggested changes. If there's nothing substantial to change, I'm going to submit this for a trial run sometime tomorrow.

Submitted for a gauge of support.

In the meantime, I'm open to any more suggestions.

Bumping this back up. It got about 84 or so endorsements, but I'm rather glad it didn't pull any more.

I'm considering adding in a phrase to strengthen the neutrality part of it. I want to specifically ban the UN from entering into military conflicts, but I'm unsure of the wording to use. Everything I come up with seems to contradict legislation.

Any suggestions?

OOC: Can I make a not very helpful observation?

My 'Interpol' (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=icpin) proposal has got to 51 approvals without TGing. It got a similar amount last time, without TGing. It does, of course, not establish an international police force, and it does say that it doesn't, but we all know many will - for better or worse - think it does anyway. And I'm guessing, given the 51 approvals, it's 'better'.

Prohibition of UN Military was voted down, and the overriding sentiment seemed to be that people wanted the UN to have military forces. Humanitarian Intervention passed and Krioval found trying to repeal it harder than swallowing a watermelon whole. And the reason for Prohibition of UN Military, and this proposal, was that people constantly submit UN army/military/police proposals; presumably that's also why the no UN army rule is one of the very earliest.

On this admittedly slightly circumstantial evidence, I posit: The UN really, really wants an army and a police force. I think there are plenty of good reasons not to have it, that have nothing to do with the moderator/technical concerns; I'm - we're - in the minority in this. Hence, I'm not convinced a proposal that so admirably but openly prohibits the formation of UN military forces is going to get anywhere.

Not to advocate dishonesty, but maybe it would have much better chance slipped into a more general proposal? I doubt certain clauses of UN Educational Aid Act, for example, would have been accepted in isolation. What I was thinking was something based on the Pacific Settlement of Disputes portion of the RL UN Charter. The proposal would urge or require states to seek mediation before conflict, could be a substantial but non-duplicating (duplicative? duplicatory?) improvement on Mutual Recognition of Borders, and could include a section on how the UN will offer to arbitrate but not to engage militarily. An alternative would be something like Ellelt's or SilentScope's peacekeeping proposals, that could lay out guidelines for peacekeeping, provide for the UN to accredit such agencies, but prevent it from becoming involved.

I know, initially, some of us, including I admit me, said that the proposal should be very bold, and really state its objective so as to warn people off from submitting UN army proposals. But realistically, would it do so anyway? We still see proposals on abortion and marriage, and those two resolutions were perfectly clear; and there are torrents on education and disarmament.

Just a thought.

OOC: QoD makes an excellent point ther eat the end (and some very good ones throughout, but I wanna focus on the last bit). Even though a mod requested that this be tackled, there's really nothing to be gained from it. Those who are going to submit "UN Army" proposals are going to keep doing so, whether there's a ban on the books or not. Why? Because they can't be bothered to read -- not the rules, not existing resolutions, not even the warning on a tube of Preparation H ("Do not take orally"). And if they can't be bothered to read, they're not going to notice any resolution banning a UN military (and they'll also end up with some tight-assed lips after sucking on a tube of Preparation H).

Basically, though the intent here is admirable, it is, unfortunately, a huge waste of time and effort.

I'm definitely operating on the premise that this will be easier for the mods, rather than anything else. Fris stated his desires for such a proposal, because it would A. mean less warnings handed out a B. provide a legal basis for a game rule.

But, considering Quod's suggestions, perhaps it would be better to focus this into some more meaningful legislation. As it is, what I've got is little more than a blocker with no other effect.

i'll just let this fade back, then, unless there are others who want to see it pushed forward.