NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations Delegates,

RECOGNIZING: The truly well-meaning intent of the author of "Ban International Trafficking"

NOTING: That said legislation, Resolution #229, contains several fatal flaws:

A) The definition of “recreational drug” used includes ALL drugs other than antibiotics, which is certainly too broad to either be useful or fair to any nation.

B) The definition of “international drug trafficker” used includes persons who are not intending or aware that they are violating the resolution. Thus this in essence increases the number of 'criminals' of a nation in an arbitrary fashion, places greater strain on police forces (as they must halt all those in violation of the resolution, if the nation is following the urgings of this legislation at all [see D])

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to other nation’s criminal codes, thus violating the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally thus compromising the penal systems of any nation.

D) The resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to even accomplish what it sets out to do. Thus there is no truly definitive steps taken to reduce drug trafficking in nations which would rather encourage it or ignore it. Considerations and Urgings are not solid enough to truly enact change and thus make this resolution little more than wasted ink on paper.

E) The resolution's stance on the opiate class of drugs, which violates a previous mandate: "No Embargoes on Medicine". Thus simply because of the possible violation of an established precedent, this legislation is contradictory.

URGES: The reconsidering of this legislation by all Member-Nations of the United Nations because of the reasoning above.

REPEALS: The Aforementioned "Ban on International Trafficking".

Co-Author: Rubina.

[Unfinished]

UN resolutions clearly call for "No Embargoes on Medicine."

I believe that stopping the free trade of drug traffic is an embargo.

One of the most important drugs that have outlawed are the opiate class. Opiates are the single best way to treat those in pain or dying.


here is the relevent section from the UN resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--No Embargoes on Medicine

--A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

--Category: Human Rights
--Strength: Significant
--Proposed by: Cherry Cola

--Description: We assert that modern medicine can vastly improve quality of life, and is beneficial to all. Not having access to modern medicine and modern medical supplies can cause unnecessary suffering and death.

--Therefore we propose that in the course of war, no nation make embargoes restricting the sale of medicine or medical supplies.

--We also propose that any controlling authority, be it a government, a rebellion, or an occupying force, make no restrictions in times of war preventing doctors from entering the retion to treat the sick, wounded, and dying.

--Modern medicine is one of our societies modern accomplishments. We urge all nations to adopt this resolution to ensure that it is made freely accessable in times of war - times when it is needed most.

--Votes For: 11405

--Votes Against: 2757

--Implemented: Fri Oct 24 2003

I don't care what the repeal says, you have my support. Let's get this terminally vague resolution off the books.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

ditto

double ditto.

typos/misspellings bother me, but whatever. godspeed to the repeal!

That certainly was fast. I have no quirrels with the repeal as written, and am prepared to defend it to the bitter end if it reaches quorum. I would suggest we have a replacement resolution ready to assure other nations that this resolution will be replaced with a stronger one.

Format suggestion: put the co-author line on the bottom. Certainly not required, but it's the standard convention (covention?).

on second thought, this phrase is bugging me so i have to comment on it:

"The Legislation that the current itself carries forth several fatal flaws"

...umm, what??

something like "The said legislation, Resolution #229, contains several fatal flaws" ...?

(still biting my tongue on the typos)
(which doesn't make much sense, i know, since i'm typing)
(and yes, "convention")
(and again, i wish swift success for the repeal)
(ok, i'm getting sick of these parentheses now)

Format suggestion: put the co-author line on the bottom. Certainly not required, but it's the standard convention (covention?).

typos/misspellings bother me, but whatever. godspeed to the repeal!Fine-tooth combs have yet to be applied, but will be.

Only if the convention is covalent does it become a covention. ;)

The Confederacy of Republicanianopalis acting as a UN Member and UN Delegate for the Region of Battleground Games hereby supports and endorses this proposal to repeal the overly broad Ban International Trafficking resolution.

We look forward to voting in favor of repealing that resolution. God speed!

Thanks for the commentary and support folks, it's much apreciated.
[Going to fix all things mentioned now.]

¡That law its an INSANITY! I support you in this cruzade, our country cannot be raped in this way about his own shape to view the world and the laws, if some country want to be against drugs so be it, in HIS country not in my own.

Clause C should be all one sentence, "Thus violating" being a subordinate clause, or rephrased slightly for grammatical correctness.

"in-act" should be "enact".

That is about as excited as we are prepared to get about anything as limp and ineffectual as "Ban International Trafficking".

Clause C should be all one sentence, "Thus violating" being a subordinate clause, or rephrased slightly for grammatical correctness.

"in-act" should be "enact".

That is about as excited as we are prepared to get about anything as limp and ineffectual as "Ban International Trafficking".

Thanks for the corrections, many thanks.

As are we excited at the swift support this repeal is gaining, I plan to launch the repeal once other, unrelated yet important legislation is delt with.

In the Freeland of Dun Muldar, we drink a mighty stout. How long until some other region determines that your stout is a "recreational drug". In fact how many other regions have their own predilictions.

We move to repeal the law passed by the U.N.

Where we respect the laws of other lands we will not be forced to deal with their addictions. We will respect your laws concerning imports into your land, as we expect you to respect our.

I urge you to repeal.

Thanks for the support Dun Muldar!

Let's see...

RECOGNIZING: The truly well-meaning intent of the author of "Ban International Trafficking"I suppose so...

NOTING: That said legislation, Resolution #229, contains several fatal flaws:Agreed.

A) The definition of “recreational drug” used includes ALL drugs other than antibiotics, which is certainly too broad to either be useful or fair to any nation.

B) The definition of “international drug trafficker” used includes persons who are not intending or aware that they are violating the resolution. Thus this in essence increases the number of 'criminals' of a nation in an arbitrary fashion, places greater strain on police forces (as they must halt all those in violation of the resolution, if the nation is following the urgings of this legislation at all Those are two good points.

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to other nation’s criminal codes, thus violating the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally thus compromising the penal systems of any nation.Where? Clause #4, which advises "each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime committed"?
I suppose that it could be read in that way, but the clause is so loose that I wouldn't consider it a major point and give it this position so early on in the repeal's text... especially as nations would already have been free to try exerting political pressure by imposing sanctions in that way BEFORE the resolution was passed, anyway...

D) The resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to even accomplish what it sets out to do. Thus there is no truly definitive steps taken to reduce drug trafficking in nations which would rather encourage it or ignore it. Considerations and Urgings are not solid enough to truly enact change and thus make this resolution little more than wasted ink on paperWell, it does "mandate" punishing the traffickers, but you're right about the rest of this clause being useless if a nation's government doesn't want to act.
If anybody plans on drafting a replacment proposal, too, then I'd suggest that it should "require" nations to do as much as they can to prevent the illegal trafficking (in the re-defined, narrower range of drugs) although preferably with exception allowed in cases where they believe shipments are actually intended for sacramental -- rather than recreational -- use.

E) The resolution's stance on the opiate class of drugs, which violates a previous mandate: "No Embargoes on Medicine". Thus simply because of the possible violation of an established precedent, this legislation is contradictory.That's an interesting argument. I see that the other resoution you're mentioning here only "proposes" action, is that taken as binding?
I was originally going to argue that this argument was incorrect, because the resolution only requires actions against trafficking in drugs if & when those substances are actually regarded as illegal by the government of the nation to which they are being transported and a measure supported by the government of the nation affected wouldn't normally be counted as an 'embargo', but if "proposes" is taken as binding then -- given the wording used elsewhere in "No Embargoes on Medicine" -- I'd have to agree that there does seem to be a potential contradiction here.
There might possibly be a contradiction of the "Patients Rights Act", in which only the patients and their doctors can decide whether any particular treatments are to be given, too...

That's assuming that resolutions in the 'Recreational Drugs' category also affect non-recreational uses of drugs too, of course. On the one hand the rule that any proposals about "medical marijuana" would have to be in this category to be legal suggests that they do, on the other hand I can remember reading a Mod ruling (that a proposal with a title along the lines of "Ban All Alcohol" would not prevent the industrial and sacremental uses of ethanol, only the recreational uses) that suggests they don't...

Presumably "opiates" wouldn't count as a RL reference, but as several other kinds of medicinal drugs (such as antidepressants) could also be affected I'd suggest changing it to something along the lines of "various types of medicinal drugs" anyway...

HOWEVER: Although the "No Contradictions" rule seems so obvious that it should exist IC as well as OOC, I'm not entirely sure that mentioning it in your proposal's arguments like thsi wouldn't currently be classed as 'Meta-Gaming' and therefore illegal! I strongly suggest asking for a Mod's ruling on this point...

URGES: The reconsidering of this legislation by all Member-Nations of the United Nations because of the reasoning above.Is this clause really necessary?

REPEALS: The Aforementioned "Ban on International Trafficking". Good idea.

If nothing else, I will vote to support this repeal simply to strike the blighted proposal from the books.

Where? Clause #4, which advises "each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime committed"?

I suppose that it could be read in that way, but the clause is so loose that I wouldn't consider it a major point and give it this position so early on in the repeal's text... especially as nations would already have been free to try exerting political pressure by imposing sanctions in that way BEFORE the resolution was passed, anyway...


Based on the author's own language within discussion of the text along with even the possibilty it can be read that way places doubt on the resolution. Thus, if this was not the intent in any case this resolution should be repealed and allow for a clearer or at least a more difficult to
(mis/re)interept.

As for E, it was a recent addition based on some comments made eariler on.

Thanks for the commentary and I'll be making many of the corrections you mentioned.

Also, I'd really like a Mod to check over E to see if its kosher, if not let me know. Thanks everyone.

The Rogue Nation of Aboulyshna would like to state it's total support for this resolution.

Hey All,

As an update... I'll be launching this sometime within the next two weeks.
So keep the comments comming...

RECOGNIZING: The truly well-meaning intent of the author of "Ban International Trafficking"

NOTING: That said legislation, Resolution #229, contains several fatal flaws:

A) The definition of “recreational drug” used includes ALL drugs other than antibiotics, which is certainly too broad to be useful or fair to any nation.

B) The definition of “international drug trafficker” used includes persons who are not intending to violate or are unaware that they are in violation of the resolution. Thus this increases the number of 'criminals' in a nation in an arbitrary fashion and places greater strain on police forces. They must halt all those in violation of the resolution, if the nation is following the urgings of this legislation at all.

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes, thus compromising the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally compromising the penal systems of any nation.

D) The resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to accomplish what it sets out to do. Thus there are no truly definitive steps taken to reduce drug trafficking in nations which would rather encourage it or ignore it. Considerations and urgings are not solid enough to truly enact change and thus make this resolution little more than wasted ink on paper.

E) The resolution's stance on the opiate class of drugs, which violates a previous mandate: "No Embargoes on Medicine". Thus simply because of the possible violation of an established precedent, this legislation is contradictory.

URGES: The reconsidering of this legislation by all Member-Nations of the United Nations because of the reasoning above.

REPEALS: The Aforementioned "Ban on International Trafficking".

Co-Author: Rubina.

I did some grammar correction there. You may ignore it as you see fit.

I approve of this resolution.

If there are no other additions, I'll be puting this up for vote shortly.

Edit: It has been posted!

Very good. Here's your link (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=international), and here's your text:

Repeal "Ban International Trafficking"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #229
Proposed by: Evoinia

Description: UN Resolution #229: Ban International Trafficking (Category: Recreational Drug Use; Decision: Outlaw) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING: The truly well-meaning intent of the author of "Ban International Trafficking"

NOTING: That said legislation, Resolution #229, contains several fatal flaws:

A) The definition of “recreational drug” used includes ALL drugs other than antibiotics, which is certainly too broad to be useful or fair to any nation.

B) The definition of “international drug trafficker” used includes persons who are not intending to violate or are unaware that they are in violation of the resolution. Thus this increases the number of 'criminals' in a nation in an arbitrary fashion and places greater strain on police forces. They must halt all those in violation of the resolution, if the nation is following the urgings of this legislation at all.

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes, thus compromising the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally compromising the penal systems of any nation.

D) The resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to accomplish what it sets out to do. Thus there are no truly definitive steps taken to reduce drug trafficking in nations which would rather encourage it or ignore it. Considerations and urgings are not solid enough to truly enact change and thus make this resolution little more than wasted ink on paper.

E) The resolution's stance on various types of medical drugs (the opiate class of drugs, for example), which violates a previous mandate: "No Embargoes on Medicine". As well this resolution renders a possible violation of the "Patients Rights Act", and thus simply because of the possible violation of an established precedents, this legislation is contradictory.

URGES: The reconsidering of this legislation by all Member-Nations of the United Nations because of the reasoning above.

REPEALS: The Aforementioned "Ban on International Trafficking".

Co-Author: Rubina.

Approvals: 7 (PointiStix, Flibbleites, WZ Forums, NewTexas, Ceclianistic States, Neenlandopolisia, Baiteria)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 108 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Dec 10 2007We're happy to see this has been cleaned up some, and even though we can't agree with all the arguments proffered, we would be very pleased to vote to strike this mutha out.

~Cdr. Chiang

In an effort to call attention to the possible abuses of "Ban International Trafficking", Mott Haven has recently floated a proposal to specifically remove Chocolate from any definition of Recreational Drugs, despite its scientifically demonstrated mind altering affects.

We would like to see "Ban International Trafficing" repealed and replaced with better- failing that, we would support any number of specific exemptions. We expect to see a similar exception for alchohol.

Almost forgot: the text of our proposal.


Description: It is proposed that the Chocolate, including its mind-altering chemical components such as Theo-bromides, when such components are occurring in natural concentrations, be specifically exempted from any definition of recreational drugs that might otherwise include it by strict interpretation of the definition, as per the example of United Nations Resolution #229 which reads in part:

Description: DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "recreational drug" as a chemical substance whose primary purpose is to act upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary or permanent changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior,





Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 115 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Dec 10 2007

Sorry, but I don't think you can amend resolutions.

However...who gets to decide what's the "primary purpose" of a drug is? Simple, you do. Big wide loophole that can allow anyone to decriminalize anything.

The primary purpose of Chocolate is not to receive pleasure hormones, it's just to excerise your teeth. There. Choclolate is not a recreational drug.

In an effort to call attention to the possible abuses of "Ban International Trafficking", Mott Haven has recently floated a proposal to specifically remove Chocolate from any definition of Recreational Drugs, despite its scientifically demonstrated mind altering affects.

We would like to see "Ban International Trafficing" repealed and replaced with better- failing that, we would support any number of specific exemptions. We expect to see a similar exception for alchohol.Go plug your proposal in your own thread.

Hey All, I'd ask all those interested to please convince whomever you can to join in the chorus to get this to quorum.

Thanks for the support all.

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes, thus compromising the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally compromising the penal systems of any nation.

First, I like the point being advocated behind clause C.

That said, I think the qualification "thus compromising the national sovereignty ..." isn't necessary to support this clause.

While the concept of sovereignty is something many nations, including mine, support, it is not a word Mikitivity would like to see mentioned in a UN resolution.

Felix and his dog Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=687&view=findpost&p=7148304) approach the podium. Mister Jones snarls at the assembly. Felix speaks.

While the concept of sovereignty is something many nations, including mine, support, it is not a word Mikitivity would like to see mentioned in a UN resolution.
Why? So long as it is not the primary (or sole) argument used in the repeal, I see no reason not to employ the term "sovereignty".

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

In several hours, we shall be begining our telegram campaign. We would ask that all those interested would please join forth with us in this task.

Why didn't you begin telegramming the day it was submitted? I fear it might be too late.

Felix and his dog Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=687&view=findpost&p=7148304) approach the podium. Mister Jones snarls at the assembly. Felix speaks.


Why? So long as it is not the primary (or sole) argument used in the repeal, I see no reason not to employ the term "sovereignty".

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

OOC:
I believe the term is rarely used in any RL resolutions (I say believe, because I've probably only read a hundred or so RL UN resolutions while researching various topics years ago). The impression I got is that term is typically reserved for treaties or organizational documents. For example, it is one of the first legal words used in the RL UN Charter in Article 2.

This was further reinforced when I talked with RL UN Deputy and Assistant Secretary Generals when I was an undergrad and one of the organizers on a conference on the UN at Texas A&M. They all pretty much described the organization as being "advisory", and that its actions really employed the weak sort of language that are common of many of our NSUN resolutions. :)

However, the NSUN is a different creature, and some of our resolutions ... particularly those that promote human rights, are not sovereignty friendly and yet these resolutions tend to get the highest support. Some, not all. There are also many human rights resolutions that are much more cautious about stepping on the toes of our imaginary nations -- I'm not dissing the category, but using it as one example. So, I think it is still fair to say that the concept of sovereignty is not as high a priority in many NationStates countries as some of the general concepts that are toggled on/off via our resolutions.

The problem is that we do have a game rule (which I believe the moderators will enforce) establishing that sovereignty alone can not be used to justify a repeal (or supposedly a resolution -- perhaps a blocker). However, the opposite concept "unilateralism" is completely accepted and employed without such a restriction. The word isn't used, but the concept certainly is.

For example, if I wanted to say, "All people need to be protected from evil governments, so governments should allow gay marriage", I'm really saying that gay marriage is a universal right and that nations do not have a sovereign right to determine if this is true in their society. According to our present rules, I need not add any other argument for that basic idea to be legal.

And yet, if I were to say, "Although all people need to be protected from evil governments and governments should allow gay marriage, the ultimate right for self-determination must still be upheld" I'd have to add some additional justification for this to be legal.

The reason for this is if we didn't discourage the sole justification for repeals on a self-determination basis we'd see plenty of resolutions / debates focusing on self-determination and sovereignty and not the subject matter at hand. With that in mind, I'm not disagreeing with the moderation decision, but instead actually agreeing with it.

Also, I think it is an interesting and fun word to toss around in debate. In this case, the concept of clause C is strong enough without the word. Heck, this clause alone caught my attention as something to seriously consider supporting. :)

I miss caveman talk.

The problem is that we do have a game rule (which I believe the moderators will enforce) establishing that sovereignty alone can not be used to justify a repeal (or supposedly a resolution -- perhaps a blocker).
It isn't the only argument used in this repeal though.

Further, the following Resolutions all use either the term "sovereignty" or "national sovereignty":

'RBH' Replacement
Oceanic Waste Dumping
Rights and Duties of UN States
Humanitarian Intervention
Repeal "The Law of the Sea"
UN Demining Survey
Repeal "Individual Self-Determination"

Regardless of whether or not the term is used in RL UN resolutions, I think there is ample precedent for using it in NS UN resolutions. NatSov just can't be the only argument used.

It isn't the only argument used in this repeal though.

Further, the following Resolutions all use either the term "sovereignty" or "national sovereignty":

'RBH' Replacement
Oceanic Waste Dumping
Rights and Duties of UN States
Humanitarian Intervention
Repeal "The Law of the Sea"
UN Demining Survey
Repeal "Individual Self-Determination"

Regardless of whether or not the term is used in RL UN resolutions, I think there is ample precedent for using it in NS UN resolutions. NatSov just can't be the only argument used.

I am well aware that the term is used from time to time in NSUN resolutions. But if you reread my original comment I was merely saying I didn't feel the term was necessary. In this case, it is redundant in that clause.

I am well aware that the term is used from time to time in NSUN resolutions. But if you reread my original comment I was merely saying I didn't feel the term was necessary. In this case, it is redundant in that clause.
Well, no. What you said was:
While the concept of sovereignty is something many nations, including mine, support, it is not a word Mikitivity would like to see mentioned in a UN resolution.

Why didn't you begin telegramming the day it was submitted? I fear it might be too late.

Well, I was busy... Heh.
But this was only the first trial attempt anyway. When my time is completely free, I'll be ready for everything.

Well, no. What you said was:

You aren't quoting my original comment there bub. Rather you've quoted my explanation to your question -- and you're taking things out of context. I clearly said "if you reread my original comment".

I'm not purposefully trying to make things difficult, honest.

Here is the part I was talking about:
]I think the qualification "thus compromising the national sovereignty ..." isn't necessary to support this clause.

Clause C is fine. It gets the point of sovereignty across in the first half of the sentence. My suggestion was to trim the clause down. Make it more caveman friendly.

You aren't quoting my original comment there bub. Rather you've quoted my explanation to your question -- and you're taking things out of context. I clearly said "if you reread my original comment".
Well, OK bub. Here's the full quote.
First, I like the point being advocated behind clause C.

That said, I think the qualification "thus compromising the national sovereignty ..." isn't necessary to support this clause.

While the concept of sovereignty is something many nations, including mine, support, it is not a word Mikitivity would like to see mentioned in a UN resolution.
Can we stop hijacking Evoinia's thread with this pedantry now?

Well, OK bub. Here's the full quote.

Can we stop hijacking Evoinia's thread with this pedantry now?

Something to consider then -- I'm under the impression you've been trying to debate me, by placing me on the defensive for OPINIONS I hold. Facts can be disproved, opinions can't -- as they have no basis in facts. And while my opinions can be changed, I'm pretty sure that debating is one of the least effective ways to change my opinions. (Bribery works wonders though.) ;)

Once again, I'm gonna talk about the proposal ...
My "full quote" supports everything I've been saying. I have no problem with the point of clause C ... in fact, I think that clause is one of the stronger points of the proposal.

The first part of clause C really does a great job in specifically saying what the problem is: "require[s] nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes".

This isn't just about "sovereignty", but it is specifically about reversing a requirement that nations change their punishments according to other societies practices. The reason I think the second part of clause C is unnecessary, is too many people (I know I don't have hours to spend reading everything, so I) scan posts and then react when seeing strong words like sovereignty.

We all understand what the word means ... but if we scan and see the word, we are very likely to miss the real part that matters here: "require[s] nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes".

To make this clear, I'm not demanding that clause C be changed. But I am suggesting that I *think* a shorter clause C will work a bit better.

My problem with Clause C is not so much the buzzword "sovereignty" (the discussion for which really could use a rest), but its assertion that the original "attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes," a flatly wrong statement from my end. Exactly where in the proposal does it attempt to require us to punish our criminals according to the Rubinan code of justice?

My problem with Clause C is not so much the buzzword "sovereignty" (the discussion for which really could use a rest), but its assertion that the original "attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to another nation’s criminal codes," a flatly wrong statement from my end. Exactly where in the proposal does it attempt to require us to punish our criminals according to the Rubinan code of justice?

That is a very constructive comment. :)

With NSWiki down, it takes me much longer to find the original text using the actual NS list of all UN resolutions.

An argument might be made that sections 3 and 4 of the resolution open the door for one set of ideals to impose upon another set:


§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.

§4 ADVISING each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime committed.

I'm not myself convinced this is that strong of language.

Another factor to consider is that the resolution category and effect "outlawing" might also be considered by some to be an imposition on their way of running their nations.

Is there anywhere else in the original resolution where you might see some nations having a basis for a claim that the resolution infringes upon their sovereignty?

Exactly where in the proposal does it attempt to require us to punish our criminals according to the Rubinan code of justice?It doesn’t, and that clause needs some work to accurately reflect the problems with the original.

What the original legislation does do is encourage nations to wage economic warfare on others until such time as the target nation adopts a criminal code to the blackmailing nation’s liking. Though this behavior isn’t unknown between nations, it is something the UN needs to be very careful in advocating.

Mickey Special storms into the General Assembly armed with an enormous bong and a six-pack of Budweiser.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/mickey.jpg

"What the hell? I can't believe you're tryin' to repeal this! This law is the greatest thing to ever happen to drug smugglin'. It's unenforceable, the sanctions never happen and it gives us an excuse to raise prices!"

"Lemme give you some input from a couple of experts in the field. Here's Gary Don 'Carlos' Buffkin and Freddy McCollum, a couple of our 'Field Service Reps'".

The image of Gary Don and Freddy appears on the General Assembly's video screens, accompanied by staticky audio.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/2.jpg

*staticky audio* ...yeah, are we comin' through there? Can ya hear me Mickey? What.....

...anyway, yeah, business is great. Never better. Drug laws haven't been changed in most of our territories. Couple of govmints raised fines, added some jailtime, nothin' major. Most of 'em haven't changed a thing. 'Course they're all paid off...heh. Right Freddy? *someone in the background says 'yeah'*

"No major nation has imposed sanctions on anybody as far as I know. Maybe a couple, but if they have we haven't noticed."

"...best thing is, this caused a scare 'cos it looked like the UN was actually gonna do somethin', so we had to raise prices! *laughing is heard*

"...anyway, gotta go. Commerce calls."

The line goes dead.

Mickey Special takes a swig from a Budweiser (without removing it from the six-pack), then speaks.

"Well there you have it. Straight from a couple of guys who know what they're talkin' about. Ban International Trafficking is the best resolution in the history of the UN. Our President, Ronnie James Dio, has given me instructions to oppose this repeal, get drunk, listen to some kick-ass tunes, and drive my car in the ditch."

Mickey Special falls of the stage.

Which was one of the biggest areas of contension for many people when the original resolution was passed.

In any case, I'm not expecting to recieve the 88 needed approvals for this in time... so expect this to be attempted when it has my full focus later next week.

So If anyone has major issues to bring up or additions to make (excluding a total removal of Clause C, as I feel it is a critical portion to the removal of this useless legislation).

I'll move onto the next clause:

D) The resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to even accomplish what it sets out to do. Thus there is no truly definitive steps taken to reduce drug trafficking in nations which would rather encourage it or ignore it. Considerations and Urgings are not solid enough to truly enact change and thus make this resolution little more than wasted ink on paper.

First, my government actually appreciates resolutions that make use of weaker language, precisely because these resolutions afford more rights to nations than they take away.

Second (and my real suggestion), is that even weak resolutions are more than wasted ink. What the resolution 229 really did was to encourage nations to impose economic sanctions on other nations that they felt weren't taking appropriate action. One government has already hinted that this could potentially be a strong action / statement on the part of the UN.

A way that this cause could be rewritten might be,

D) The resolution's language did not directly impose strong actions on nations that choose to not adopt more stringent drug control laws. Instead the resolution urged nations to consider actions. Future resolutions could better take definitive steps to control illegal drug trafficking ...

That is just an idea. And as a nation that supports the idea behind clause C, a stronger set of actions almost sounds counter to the idea presented in C.

Hey Folks,

Jonas Spyridon, Leader of the Evoinian Anti-Dictator League, here just to let everyone know that on Monday we'll be starting for a second go at this.

We've got a new draft readied with our Co-Author, Rubina, and are ready to go.

So, even though we're in the middle of a civil war, Evoinia will begin the second stage work on this legislation.

I wish you good luck on this! If I might be so bold, perhaps a replacement could use this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12502406#post12502406) as a starting point, even if not the final deal.

~ Hari

OOC: Why do I point that out? Because I don't want to see the months (years, if you count Rehochipe's original) of work that went into that one go to waste because of a dangerous blocker. But for godssakes don't reply to that thread, it's several months old.

Dasri, thanks for the support.

And we will certainly concider using that as a basis of our replacement.

OOC: Sorry for posting on the other account there folks, I forgot to log out.

The United Nations;

RECOGNIZING the intent and goals of UN Resolution #229, “Ban International Trafficking”;

CONVINCED that said legislation contains significant flaws, including but not limited to the following:

A) As defined in UNR #229, “recreational drug” includes all drugs other than antibiotics, with no consideration of intent or circumstances of their use. Said definition is too broad to be useful or fair to any nation.

B) The definition of “international drug trafficker” includes persons who are not intending to violate or are unaware that they are in violation of the resolution. The requirement in UNR #229 to punish such persons goes against principles of fair administration of justice, increases the number of ‘criminals’ in a nation in an arbitrary fashion and strains nations’ law enforcement and criminal justice systems.

C) The resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to other nation’s criminal codes, thus violating the national sovereignty of countless nations who do not act in the manner desired by other states and equally thus compromising the penal systems of any nation.

D) The resolution’s inclusion in its mandate of medical drugs coupled with its recommendation for embargoes and other retaliatory measures could be seen to violate the previous mandate contained in UNR #33, “No Embargoes on Medicine.” Additionally, provisions of "Ban International Trafficking" allowing the insertion of government policy coupled with the overly broad definition of drugs included produces serious harm to the guarantees to patients, and in conjunction health care providers, provided by UNR #159, "Patients Rights Act".

Hereby REPEALS “Ban International Trafficking”.

Co-Author: Rubina.

Comments?
Also folks, I'm gonna be looking for afew people to help Rubina and I TG the masses.

OOC: A suggestion - don't put your draft in [quote] tags, but rather use [indent]. It makes it easier for us to quote back in reply. I hope to submit my replacement slavery proposal, but if you submit the repeal after Christmas, I may be able to help with TGing.

First, we voted against Ban International Trafficking and would have more strongly opposed it had more pressing internal concerns not occupied our time; hence we are glad to see a repeal being formed. A few comments:

I generally dislike repeals that start with 'recognising the goals' or whatever; it seems a bit irrelevant (or 'boilerplate', as a previous denizen of these halls would have dubbed it). I don't even agree with the goals of #229. So why bother? It doesn't really add anything to the argument. If you want to state that you're not opposed to all anti-trafficking measures, just this one, then I think there are more direct ways of phrasing it.

In A), it might be helpful if you included some examples. For example, the definition surely includes tea and coffee, and it includes anaesthetics.

I'm not really keen on B), which seems to sanction ignorance of the law as an excuse, to some extent. Perhaps you could - and I'm assuming this is what you're referring to - explicitly say that the resolution prevents nations from concentrating on organizers of trafficking, instead directing valuable police time to prosecuting mules, who may be unaware, or forced into trafficking.

C) seems strong: why not lead with it? And you could perhaps include what the Ausserlanders usually refer to as the concept of 'jurisdiction': 'it forces nations to recognise others' jurisdictions within their own sovereign territory on matters of national concern', or somesuch.

D) is ok, but I wouldn't say it violates #33, because that's not really an argument suitable for a repeal (which isn't allowed to argue a resolution is illegal). It would be better to say that it limits the scope of Resolution #33 and may prevent vital medical ('medicinal'?) drugs. Also include the word 'legitimate', I would suggest.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Thanks for the support Ambassador Madison and we shall take into concideration your suggestions.

- Temp. Delegate Bob.

I support this resolution. The current resolution puts a limitation on free trade, and hurts the economy of many nations.