NationStates Jolt Archive

Our great Republic of Viite would like to put forward an idea for a new resolution, the goal of being to end war between nations belonging to the U.N.
___________________________________________________________
Name: The Antiwar Act
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

An act to end war between U.N. nations.

The United Nations,

I. DEFINING war, for the purposes of this resolution, as the waging of armed conflict between one or more groups of people.

II. RECOGNIZES the damage war has on the peoples, economies, and general societies of involved nations; so therefore

III. PROHIBITS war between nations belonging to the U.N.,

IV. DISCOURAGES war between U.N. and non-U.N. nations; however,

V. PROTECTS the rights of a nation to defend itself from hostile attack, and

VI. EXEMPTS situations including but not limited to the following from clauses 3 and 4:

1. Aid for a nation in civil war,
2. Aid for a nation that has been or is in danger of being forcibly taken over by another nation, and
3. Aid for the peoples of nations which violate the basic human rights that are put forth by other U.N. resolutions including resolutions 26, 80, and 230.
________________________________________________________

Any ideas for improvement and/or rewording to make more sense are very welcome. As of now we have not put forward this proposal for the regional delegates to vote on.

Also, our nation is wondering if it is legal to, once we submit our proposal, send telegrams to numerous delegates to promote our idea?

Thank you,

The Foreign Ambassador of the People's Republic of Viite

The UN is not an alliance; you can't prevent members from going to war with each other. I don't know if that necessarily makes this "illegal," but it's certainly unwise. Besides, all any nation would have to do to get around it is resign from the UN, so this won't prevent a single war -- and considering non-member nations need not worry about UN Global Disarmament and International Security accords, this will make the business of war far more destructive.

"IV" is probably a borderline violation; clauses of resolutions may only apply to member states, so the "between UN and non-UN nations" language is not going to work. Also, the UN has passed 50+ Human Rights Resolutions, why are you singling out those three in particular? May not be House of Cards, but I don't see the need for it.

Would a street fight between armed gangs be considered "war" under this proposal?

Technically, the whole thing is nerfed.

VI. EXEMPTS situations including but not limited to the following from clauses 3 and 4:

Besides, all any nation would have to do to get around it is resign from the UN, so this won't prevent a single war --?Noting this in the clause in this proposal we might find an easier solution to war.

I. DEFINING war, for the purposes of this resolution, as the waging of armed conflict between one or more groups of people.As this ends war only between one or more groups of people any robots or programed war machines are exempt from this. Also trained animals that just hate those other folks and won't obey their trainers.. thus they go savage on them against any wishes of their trainers or programers.
Then they can't help it if they built them to good or trained them to well they can't control them.. As clauses V and VI open the door for one nation to produce war robots or machines or train animals for such to sale to other nations who might need them rather than send their own people into these wars. As the use of other than people to fight means the war is not between two or more groups of people but between what they created for it.. and that is all exempt from any bans this may empose. We can even call it a tourniment where we send our robot army against yours.. testing to see who has the best robot army.. or meanest green-eyed-three-toed-nerds...


A note one clause III where it says "Prohibits war between nations belonging to the UN." Why not something more to end war.. "Prohibits war within the borders or controled territories of member nations." As no nation is possesed by the UN so 'belongs' is a little strong and the wrong word to use.
Also this would for us cut out civil war between East Cavirra, West Cavirra, North Cavirra, Little Cavirra, Cavirra Island, and all the other sections of Cavirra that might be and come to war as well as the different races, religions, species, and whatever. An issue we would not want since we face war from to many outside the UN membership.

doesn't war perpetuate some nations' economies?

war enables our religion to survive glorious victory! the best wars are the ones fought amongst friends, that way both sides get to go to paradise!

the worse wars are the ones perpetuated through fear of the unknown and fear of defeat, we would like to ban those but we know laws don't eliminate behavior based upon fear. Instead allow our Wawis to teach you the Wawa and any wars that you wish to fight will be based upon glory! You can't ask for anything better!!!

The UN is not an alliance; you can't prevent members from going to war with each other.Well... there's nothing in the rules to prevent it, that I can think of. UN mandates via fiat. If it can say "No slaves!", then it can say "No war!"

Doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course.

"IV" is probably a borderline violation; clauses of resolutions may only apply to member states, so the "between UN and non-UN nations" language is not going to work.With the language cleaned up, it could be legal (the bio ban does something similar, I think). Again, not a particularly wise idea, as a blanket ban would make UN nations unable to defend themselves.

Wouldn't this contradict Article 4 of "Rights and Duties...": 'Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.'?

And if not in a strictly legal sense, doesn't it at least demonstrate, as has been suggested, that this is an unwise proposition? From a cynical point of view, this makes it more likely nations will resign from the UN to go to war, and hence not be held accountable to international law on war crimes, unconventional arms, etc.

Also, Resolution #80 has been repealed and has no legal standing.

Wouldn't this contradict Article 4 of "Rights and Duties...": 'Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.'?Ah. I had forgotten about that.

Of course, V. loopholes that away. Since UN members can't attack each other, they don't need to defend themselves against each other. The ban against war between member and non-member isn't binding.

Then again, this would probably prevent Member Nation B from helping Member Nation A against Non-Member Nation Q.

So, it'd still be suicide to pass, but I think it's (technically) legal. It's stupid and horribly naive, but I don't think it rises to Bloody Stupid.

all the same, it's confusing.

Robin Sena,
Empress of The Empire of Icarus City.

What if a nation declared war, did it's dirty work, and then joined the UN before the other nation had the chance to retaliate? Are they then spontaneously BFF?