NationStates Jolt Archive

Indigenous Cultures Areas
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Churchians

Description: This is to have at least 1% of a nation's land mass reserved for the use of indigenous cultures who are not willing to join the mass society of technological progress and have alternate lifestyles. More than 1% would even be better if available. This land would be reserved with the approval of the indigenous residents as areas to preserve alternative forms of knowledge and would be a great place for anthropologists and other scholars who study alternate societies to visit and share with the mass society any discoveries of interest and to offer to the indigenous the free passage to our societies for any of their scholars who wish to learn from us.

But what if a nation simply doesn't have any such indigenous cultures? Would we have to invent some in order to comply with this?!?

But what if a nation simply doesn't have any such indigenous cultures? Would we have to invent some in order to comply with this?!?

:)
Well if there is no indigenous population, which would be quite a unique situation since populations have migrated in the past and have displaced other populations.... since history has been recorded, well in the unlikely circumstance: then there is no need to set land aside. If there is a law proposing the protection of frozen lake fishing, it becomes obvious that this only takes effect in winter time when there is actual ice formations on the lakes.... the law does not insinuate that we will have to develop technology to keep ice on lakes during the summer months....

Laws indicating that a nation is allowed 12 miles of coastal waters within its national jurisdiction obviously does not include nations who are landlocked. Requests of precision can only go so far without sabotaging the actual intent of the law itself. There are things that are pretty self-evident and trying to define something which is self-evident will only turn a serious law into a farcical shadow of its origin.;)

:)
Well if there is no indigenous population, which would be quite a unique situation since populations have migrated in the past and have displaced other populations.... since history has been recorded, well in the unlikely circumstance: then there is no need to set land aside. If there is a law proposing the protection of frozen lake fishing, it becomes obvious that this only takes effect in winter time when there is actual ice formations on the lakes.... the law does not insinuate that we will have to develop technology to keep ice on lakes during the summer months....

Laws indicating that a nation is allowed 12 miles of coastal waters within its national jurisdiction obviously does not include nations who are landlocked. Requests of precision can only go so far without sabotaging the actual intent of the law itself. There are things that are pretty self-evident and trying to define something which is self-evident will only turn a serious law into a farcical shadow of its origin.;)I'm pretty certain it would also conflict with the resolution "rights of indigenous peoples." In fact, it's trying to do the same as "rights of indigenous peoples," except not as well.

I'm pretty certain it would also conflict with the resolution "rights of indigenous peoples." In fact, it's trying to do the same as "rights of indigenous peoples," except not as well.

:)
Well the raison-d'etre of the proposal, if it even reached quorum, was to have a debate about the issue and possibly find a way to correct any flaws in the current law and any flaws in the current proposal. But as can be seen, the situation is moot because it did not reach quorum.

Historically, there are many laws that are proposed that have some similarities to previous ones. Courts are then used to correct contradictory legislations. This of course does not even consider bureaucratic regulations which modify current legislation without really being presented by a legislator....

So yeah, my attempt was more a bureaucratic maneuver to shed light on the issue which could then have an appropriate legislation if it was necessary, the current UN rules do not allow for the complexities as I described them...(a good thing, we don't really want to be lawyers or legislators in here)....

Of course, if anyone wants a more analytical game of legislation creation, use a search engine and type: "nomic":)

Historically, there are many laws that are proposed that have some similarities to previous ones. Courts are then used to correct contradictory legislations. This of course does not even consider bureaucratic regulations which modify current legislation without really being presented by a legislator....

None of which applies here. In the NSUN, we have the discussion and the rulings FIRST, and then do the repeals and replacements.

Like it, don't like it, we don't care. It's how our system has to work, so you're stuck with it.

None of which applies here. In the NSUN, we have the discussion and the rulings FIRST, and then do the repeals and replacements.

Like it, don't like it, we don't care. It's how our system has to work, so you're stuck with it.

:confused:
ummm so you are agreeing with me then when I state the difference between historical issues vs what actually goes on in this forum? It seems you like you are agreeing with me with your words yet your tone referring to my quote seems like you are chastising me, yet repeating what I stated in the quote.

There is a definite difference between what goes on in history and what goes on in the forum, I have no issue, nor any complaint about this. My explanation is based upon why I was adding and strengthening an already given law (the forum has no rules about adding addendums) my rule proposal was not contradicting, repeating nor replacing the "Rights of indigenous peoples" act. It was strenghtening a couple of clauses in there without being explicit about it.

If my proposal had reached quorum and actually passed, which is a ruling and possible discussion happening first as I had intended, then as also mentioned a potential repeal could have happened and then a replacement may have ensued as was originally intended.... so your chastisement of my behaviour by telling me to act exactly what I was doing anyway becomes confusing.

If addendums to current legislation is not allowed in the UN, then I have not seen that ruling, addendums are not considered replacements, but rather extra definitions to take into account if there is an already existing law or can stand on its own if there is no existing law.

An example of what I mean: Much like nuclear weapons non-proliferation and chemical weapons non-proliferation could be addendums to weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation (when part of the definition explain explicitly a biological nature and leaves other aspects vague and not so explicit) the others do not replace and could stand on their own as laws but they can also potentially be combined without problems... (addendums).....

So "like it" (which I do, hence my participation and explanation) or "don't like it" (which I offered as alternative for any who want more thorough legislation making games which are quite complex), "we don't care" (well I hope you do bother reading some of our forum posts before you think we are saying something we are not), "its how our system has to work, so you're stuck with it." (the word "stuck" sounds so constraining, I don't see the current way of operating as anything to be "stuck" with.... I'm having a great time here)

Wish you would have understood my intent before chastising me on my presumed mistake.... my actual mistake would be based upon whether or not addendums are allowed (to which I have not found reference to... as of yet, so please help me find that particular ruling if I am mistaken on that issue) :)

If addendums to current legislation is not allowed in the UN, then I have not seen that ruling, addendums are not considered replacements, but rather extra definitions to take into account if there is an already existing law or can stand on its own if there is no existing law.
It doesn't get much clearer than this, Churchians.
Originally posted in the Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]
Types Of Violations
Amendments
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
Now we're not going to say that just because one resolution legislated on a given subject that the subject is forever closed. It does often turn out that way, when an author has taken pains to close most or all of the potential loopholes. However, if what you're calling "an addendum" matches what we call "an amendment", out it goes. That's one of the oldest UN rules on the books.

Now let's return to the original topic. If you want to pursue this further, start a thread.

Now let's return to the original topic. If you want to pursue this further, start a thread.

On second thought, silly discussion http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg for clarity.

I'm pretty certain it would also conflict with the resolution "rights of indigenous peoples." In fact, it's trying to do the same as "rights of indigenous peoples," except not as well.

:cool:
It is not in conflict with the above, it does not seek to replace it. It is not trying to offer "rights". It reserves land in an explicit manner which is touched upon in the above law but in non-definite terms in a few of its clauses. If it is anything, it can be identified with the above law as being in the same category, much like a law that condemns weapons of mass destruction and I propose a ruling as how to dispose of nuclear weapons.

My proposal is no longer in existence (it did not reach quorum), it would not have replaced, modified or conflicted with the existing law. It would have been in the same category as the above law, could have been in the same "code of laws" book as a different chapter. One law referred to "rights" with a mention of land within its clauses. My proposal mentioned land grants only without any real mention of rights. My previous posts were mentioning gray areas but it seems like this mole hill is being turned into a mountain and amendments/addendums are being used in a black and white manner, so I have little choice but to play the black and white game and state categorically that the proposal is not falling in the category of modifying an existing rule as it is defined or as experienced with the current rules. If my non-existent proposal is seen as illegal because the proposal is seen to modify an existing rule then perhaps we should re-assess some of the current rules who may fall in that category of being similar to each other.

Am I being told that similarities between laws are not allowed? Case in point: this is from the law called The Universal Bill of Rights:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

And there is a law called Religious Tolerance which states, "Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion."

Both these laws are currently in the acceptable laws, my proposal was following the same practice. And this is but one example that I found. So I repeat, my proposal was not a modification (amendment) of current laws, but a new law which could be categorized to be in the same "province", hence my word "addendum".... just as others have done as demonstrated in actual existing laws.

So if the rules change, let me know and I will comply wholeheartedly, but don't place my practice in a category that it does not belong in. :cool:

May we draw your attention once again to the rules sticky, wherein it is explained (in the section on repeals we think) that old UN laws are grandfathered in. In short, "acceptable" is not a conclusion one can draw from the older laws.

May we draw your attention once again to the rules sticky, wherein it is explained (in the section on repeals we think) that old UN laws are grandfathered in. In short, "acceptable" is not a conclusion one can draw from the older laws.

:(
ummm I didn't quite understand you in what you were saying.... grandfathered in? guess its a slow-brain week for me.... if you could please clarify so I can have a better understanding where I err (or where you think I err, if I am not in error.... which may or may not be the case.... but if I am, then I want to rectify my misperception) I hope no one thinks that I am going out of my way to be difficult, I just don't want to repeat my error if I am doing one, but I must understand before I move on.... my resistance is not arrogance but humility without backing down from my position if I am correct... hope this makes sense!?! :confused:

Sorry about this, His Highness is stuck talking the Grand Druid out of declaring holy war on all these nations trying to force their Barryist religion on us. He's a frothing nutcase who's a bit too fond of his sickle if you ask me. Fortunately the Great Druid, his boss, is a nice old ba-- er, matron, who may be a bit iffy about her theology but really doesn't like starting fights.

Anyway, the basic point that HRH was waffling on about was that the rules for UN resolutions have changed several times. Just because something's on the statute books doesn't mean it would be legal now. The old laws are allowed to stay under the new rules, even when they break them, because they were there first. That's what "grandfathering" means. So what the Ambassador was saying in his usual overblown way was that saying "my proposal must be legal because this old proposal does a similar thing" doesn't work. The old laws only have to be legal by the rules they were written under, not the current rules.

Cerys Coch, Permanant Undersecretary to...

:)
Cool, thanks for the clarification. I'll assume I did a faux-pas even though I haven't yet found anything explicit about it (see above for my argument), and I'll avoid doing any addendum in the future, I'll try to come up with something completely fresh without any similarities to any clauses under existing laws.:cool: