NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nation of Dimentias feels the UN is too controlling and too hands on. I propose, because I'm not part of the UN yet, that someone make the Nation's Rights Proposal.

The below is a list of a nation's rights that can be appealed.

"A Nation has the right to Govern their citizens in a way they feel subject to.
A Nation can tax in any way and use the money any way they want to.
A Nation must stay subject to UN law and appeal any proposal they feel is unjust.
A Nation has the right to leave any union at any given time."

"A Nation has the right to Govern their citizens in a way they feel subject to.

No, because that would effectively block every proposal of almost any kind. It would also contradict existing resolutions, and hence be illegal.


A Nation can tax in any way and use the money any way they want to.


Too broad, much too vague. That would be used as a loophole to justify funding just about anything.


A Nation must stay subject to UN law and appeal any proposal they feel is unjust.

That's what repeal proposals are already for. (OOC: Anything else would be illegal as metagaming.)


A Nation has the right to leave any union at any given time."

That's already the case.


Julien Quan (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Julien_Quan),
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The bit about taxes is already covered by an existing Resolution, too.

Actually, the bit about taxes isn't neccesarily incompatible. The only resolution that has anything to say about taxes is that the UN can't tax the populace of member nations directly.

There's certainly room for expansion on the subject.

Except Representation in Taxation says no. Thanks for stopping by.

Other than the excelent points made here, I have to ask... what would be the suitable category for "Righst of Nations"? I don't think there is one.

Political Stability, according to the thinking of Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50). It would depend on the Rights concerned, of course, but given the indications in the proposal we would be comfortable with that assignment.

Political Stability, according to the thinking of Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50). It would depend on the Rights concerned, of course, but given the indications in the proposal we would be comfortable with that assignment.

As the author of Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50), I'll respectfully disagree. My proposal outlined the specific limitations of national sovereignty with regard to the UN. Dimentias' proposal does the exact opposite. In fact, I'd say that Rights and Duties would have to be repealed before this could be proposed, due to the rule against Contradiction.

Given my role as both author and mod, I'll recuse my mod powers on this one. I'll encourage The Most Glorious Hack or another mod to visit both Res #49 and this proposal. That's the only way to get an unbiased ruling, IMO.

I think Resolution #49 and this proposal are certainly contradictory in spirit, even though I couldn't find a specific instance of contradiction in the text without playing with interpretation pretty seriously.

As it stands, the proposal is too vague in its assertions to be illegal for most reasons of the reasons cited earlier, in my opinion.

Though that may be another legality problem, because proposals must actually "do something".

Ultimately, if it does "do something" it's probably going to be illegal for various reasons, and if it doesn't really do anything, it's going to be illegal precisely because it doesn't do anything.

Damned however ye writhe, I suppose.

In fact, I'd say that Rights and Duties would have to be repealed before this could be proposed, due to the rule against Contradiction.

We would certainly not disagree with that assessment. Given the state of the Dimentian proposal, we merely thought to bring it elliptically to the author's attention.

The Nation of Dimentias feels the UN is too controlling and too hands on. I propose, because I'm not part of the UN yet, that someone make the Nation's Rights Proposal.

The below is a list of a nation's rights that can be appealed.

"A Nation has the right to Govern their citizens in a way they feel subject to.
A Nation can tax in any way and use the money any way they want to.
A Nation must stay subject to UN law and appeal any proposal they feel is unjust.
A Nation has the right to leave any union at any given time."The only absolute right you have with the UN is to be a member or a non-member. Everything else is subjective.

well the tax thing really does need clarifying (indirect and direct for example)

however, yeah, all passed proposals effect budgets in someway or another, thats how the programming code works.

The only absolute right you have with the UN is to be a member or a non-member. Everything else is subjective.

:headbang:
Oh and who or what gives this so-called absolute right? What makes the UN membership a right in the first place? It sounds like the UN is claiming that it is some sort of super entity that people would fight to be in (as a right to be a member).

If my nation would decide to stoop so low as to surrender its sovereignty to a bunch of sophists, then the UN would be granted the privilege of having the benefit of my country's vote to its halls.

Everything else is subjective? That my dear UN member is sophistry and contradicts your own UN's rules of operation, as to what is granted to a non-UN member is also foolish because as I previously mentioned, my nation's sovereignty is not based upon your permission nor the UN's so you can not even claim to grant subjectivity as if you or the UN have the monopoly on Reality itself. :mp5:

:fluffle:
We are not in the UN but we try to follow all of its rules in our law-making!!! We are just not worthy enough to be part of it because we usually vote with whatever the majority wishes! (we do not want controversy)....

It is a great privilege and a great right to be here and to discuss. The UN even allows nations like myself to express its opinions and even sourpusses like the Truthmongers who have no respect for the community of UN people.... so go doze off in a corner if you just want to complain. :D

:cool:
The UN recognizes and respects the members within its halls, agreed upon laws are for the benefit of all of its members. If a member believes this to be inaccurate then they freely make the decision to leave or to re-align his nation's views. No one is forcing the UN unto anyone, but if someone wishes to join, then they are indicating that they are in agreement with the internal rule structures that are currently in place when they join.

As much as non-members criticize or withhold their membership acquisition until the UN bends to their wishes, well allow me to indicate clearly, that this will not happen. It shows that the non-member has no understanding of what the UN is, and it is better for the non-member to read the rules before they criticize or boycott-to-pressure the UN.

The UN votes on issues and the majority decide the fate of the issue, this is proper and just. If you do not like how this community functions then you are not required to be a member, and we wish your nation friendly travels. :cool: