NationStates Jolt Archive

Lately, the UN has been passing a lot of really bogus resolutions. These resolutions tend to be passed by huge waves of people who fly in, always vote yes, and fly back out, never once even reading the proposal. In an attempt to curb such UN abuses, I've submitted a proposal called "Limitation of UN Powers". I ask for endorsements from anyone who cares to give them in support of this cause, and would appreciate it a bunch if people would post a message about the proposal in their region asking there for its endorsement as well.


LIMITATION OF UN POWERS

Description: I too am personally a proponent of free speech, but my nation feels that the UN has of late been overstepping their bounds by seeking to dictate more and more how countries operate within their own borders. This is, if I might remind you, not the purpose of the United Nations, who seeks to resolve and prevent international disputes, not ensure that all citizens in every member country be assured universally equal rights in every possible way at all possible times.

RECOGNIZING that the UN passes resolutions with only the best intentions in mind for the citizens of the world,

REGRETTING that people in certain member nations have fewer human rights than people other member nations,

REALIZING that the UN has overstepped their bounds on multiple occasions by seeking to dictate more and more how countries operate within their own borders in ways that do not affect other member nations,

This proposal ESTABLISHES and REAFFIRMS that the purposes of the United Nations are:
-to resolve and prevent new international disputes
-to encourage long-standing peace agreements between member nations
-to prevent overly cruel acts of war by all nations, both member and nonmember
-to make certain of the well-being of prisoners of war from member nations and in member nations
-NOT to ensure that all citizens in every member country be assured universally equal rights in every possible way at all possible times.


As it stands, I'm very tired right now and may or may not go take a nap.

Thanks for reading, y'all.

[EDIT] Proposal added (whoops) and the preamble, which was mistakenly inserted, will stay (at least for now).

You might need to post your resolution so that we know. And in the end, I'm not sure what exactly to limit. We already got cateogeries, and things that can't fit in any cateogry can be removed. Plus, we got meta-rules banning refrences to "metagame" and prohibiting an "UN Army".

What sort of things you want to limit the UN? What do you think should be the power of the UN? Only intereving in affairs that cross national lines (prohibiting most other human rights issues unless you cast them in the light of "international security")? And what cateogry could that be placed under?

Hm. That sounds interesting.

Lastly, a reminder: This thing has been going on for quite some time, even when the game started, we got resolutions that intervened heavily in the rights of nations. However, the national soverignty movement came along and trimmed the worst of the abuses. Can you push this through? I wish you the best of luck.

EDIT: Found your resolution...:)

Limitation of UN Powers
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Randomman

Description: I too am personally a proponent of free speech, but my nation feels that the UN has of late been overstepping their bounds by seeking to dictate more and more how countries operate within their own borders. This is, if I might remind you, not the purpose of the United Nations, who seeks to resolve and prevent international disputes, not ensure that all citizens in every member country be assured universally equal rights in every possible way at all possible times.

RECOGNIZING that the UN passes resolutions with only the best intentions in mind for the citizens of the world,

REGRETTING that people in certain member nations have fewer human rights than people other member nations,

REALIZING that the UN has overstepped their bounds on multiple occasions by seeking to dictate more and more how countries operate within their own borders in ways that do not affect other member nations,

This proposal ESTABLISHES and REAFFIRMS that the purposes of the United Nations are:
-to resolve and prevent new international disputes
-to encourage long-standing peace agreements between member nations
-to prevent overly cruel acts of war by all nations, both member and nonmember
-to make certain of the well-being of prisoners of war from member nations and in member nations
-NOT to ensure that all citizens in every member country be assured universally equal rights in every possible way at all possible times.

Sounds pretty good, but it would be nice to take that preamble about the Freedom of Speech issue out...for style issue. I know gatesville might like it, and for it to be legal, you'll have to allow for previous international regulations on the issue to stand, including the possible Freedom of Speech Act if it ever get passed. Lastly, I do think it might be too strong, and gain lots of objection from other people.

You're going to have to tread carefully.

It's considered polite to post your proposal for review without forcing us to look for it. I actually did so, and won't bore the members of this Assembly with the details, but suffice to say, it's illegal, and will likely be deleted. Funny thing about the UN is, you can't tell them what their purpose is; they have a way of deciding that on their own. But if you so abhor Human Rights resolutions (and you have our greatest sympathies if you do), our suggestion would be to support this valiant effort (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10082276&postcount=100) to undo them, from a formerly Valiant State.

Cheers,
Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

lol...I thought I'd deleted that part. I used that email I wrote to someone as the basis for my proposal, if that wasn't entirely clear...

On the 'its might be too strong' topic- I thought about it, and decided, after much internal deliberation, to just say screw it. It is strong. Lots of the bills are, and those bills have a far worse impact than this one. Seriously, how does the UN pass a resolution that makes countries print up individualized IDs for every member nation and, in an even more audacious maneuver, makes nations allow the residents of other UN nations to come and go as they please. This is but one example of the "Wouldn't it be great if..." type of resolutions that have been passed lately, resolutions that sound nice and all, but carry with them unforeseen (read: blatantly ignored) consequences and repercussions. I'm more than a little bit tired of strong and stupid resolutions. Why not have some strong and intelligent ones instead?

Randomman, they actually rejected the ID Card proposal once it got to a vote. The free immigration however between nationstates does ensure the safety of all people, which could be said to help make the world a better place, and ensure international security, or some such. Yes.

ICly, I'd be against you all the steps of the way. OOCly, you are going to need a reason to stop the UN to do such a thing, and a good one at that, otherwise, as OMGTKK said, why shouldn't the UN intervene?

To be perfectly honest, the only real way to deal with UN resolutions is to just go and find loopholes and adhere to them. Despite the many UN resolutions existing on the rulebook promoting Human Rights, there are still Psychotic Dictatorships, and there will always be Dictatorships, so the UN does have limitations.

Loopholes? I know what a loophole is, before anyone decides to explain it to me, but what sort of loopholes are you talking about here?

On the 'its might be too strong' topic- I thought about it, and decided, after much internal deliberation, to just say screw it. It is strong. Lots of the bills are, and those bills have a far worse impact than this one.It's not that it's too strong. It's that it's too illegal. You have standards, apparently, as to what the UN should be passing, but unfortunately, so do the moderators (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). You can't try to limit the UN's powers or tell the UN what its purpose should be. The voters of the UN make that call, on every resolution they review, either by passing it or defeating it.

Seriously, how does the UN pass a resolution that makes countries print up individualized IDs for every member nation and, in an even more audacious maneuver, makes nations allow the residents of other UN nations to come and go as they please.I really don't know, especially since that resolution was defeated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13069433&postcount=139).

This is but one example of the "Wouldn't it be great if..." type of resolutions that have been passed lately, resolutions that sound nice and all, but carry with them unforeseen (read: blatantly ignored) consequences and repercussions. I'm more than a little bit tired of strong and stupid resolutions. Why not have some strong and intelligent ones instead?Ah. So now you are advocating a "strong" UN? Then why are you proposing an illegal document that would limit its powers, eh?

In point of fact, I certain can try to limit the UN's powers. What does it look like I'm doing now, skipping rope?

I'm not advocating a "strong" UN. I'm advocating "strong" bill that would limit just how "strong" the UN can be (it suddenly occurs to me that this should possibly be in game mechanics instead...thoughts?).

I think Kenny is right. The people of the UN decide how powerful it is, and since they voted for all these huge powers, the UN is that powerful. And those same voters who voted for the expansion of human rights will be highly against banning future expansion of human rights.

The gameplay mechanics already allow for human rights resolutions, possibly because the RL UN actually does regulate human rights, passing Bills of Rights, having Human Rights Commitees, and making speeches talking about a better world. I don't really think you can limit that power, I don't think the mods would go for it, neither would the voters. Again, if you want to keep your nation under your control, you need to find the loopholes and abuse them.

What are loopholes? They are weaknesses in the resolution you can take advantage of. Take a look at this one banning slavery (now repealed):

The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

As you can see, you got all those rights that you have to give to your nation, which is of course bad. The problem is, it doesn't actually ban slavery. So you can still have slaves as a possession, just allow the slave to own more possessions. Since slavery isn't a job, the person can't give a two week's notice. And since there are no employers in slavery, you can beat the slave up. You won't sell or purchase people, you can just "transfer" them to other people for free (in return for favors). The only thing I can't see is the "right to travel freely throughout their country", but I'm sure that while they do have that right to travel freely throughout the country, they don't have the right to LEAVE that country, etc.

Of course, you need to read through every single resolution, and take everything literally, and brutally violate the spirit of the resolution. And now that resolution is gone and will likely be replaced by a much stronger one, so you are going to have to read through that.

Kenny himself has a Creative Solutions Agency (CSA) that help to find loopholes within resolutions (one time, in order to get around a resolution granting people the right to divorce, he banned marriage), however, lately, I haven't seen him using it, so he may be fine with the resolutions currently being passing. At the same time, there are people backing movements for repeals that they really hate, and when those repeals hit the floor, people may very well approve them and strike it from the books.

In point of fact, I certain can try to limit the UN's powers. What does it look like I'm doing now, skipping rope?

I'm not advocating a "strong" UN. I'm advocating "strong" bill that would limit just how "strong" the UN can be (it suddenly occurs to me that this should possibly be in game mechanics instead...thoughts?).

As my colleague, OMGTKK, has tried to point out, the UN is only as strong as we make it. The UN isn't this dictatorial body that sits down and deals out laws putting limitations on individual nations. It is democratic, each nation has say in what is passed and what isn't. WE give the UN authority to do this, nobody else. WE vote on the resolutions that mandate trade, rights etc.

This proposal is illegal as it sets how the UN works. And regardless of what it looks like you're doing besides skipping rope, you simply can't do this.

If you do not have faith in the U.N. then I strongly suggest you withdraw from the U.N.

We find it amusing that one delegation seems to feel that it has the right to dictate to the entire UN what its purpose should or should not be, rather than letting the entire body decide that as a collective effort through the resolutions it enacts, rejects or repeals. Our amusement does not extend so far as to allow us to actually support this, however.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

In point of fact, I certain can try to limit the UN's powers.Er, no you can't. I don't know if it's that I was speaking gibberish before, or perhaps I'm just not yelling loud enough. You can't limit the UN's powers. Your proposal is illegal.

I'm not advocating a "strong" UN. I'm advocating "strong" bill that would limit just how "strong" the UN can beWhich you can't do. Your only recourse is telling UN members to vote down bad resolutions when they come to vote. That's all. Anything that passes the mods may well pass the General Assembly, and there's nothing you can do about it.

(it suddenly occurs to me that this should possibly be in game mechanics instead...thoughts?).Yeah, I'm sure the admins can be bothered to alter the UN entirely just because one pent-up member doesn't like one or two resolutions it's passed. Good luck with that.

I think our task here is done. We have heard the concerns of the delegate from Randomman, we have reached consensus (not that we needed to) and the consensus is NO.

However, if the delegate from Randomman could somehow relate his concerns to forum layout changes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542579), I'm sure the tireless committee looking into that topic would give him a hearing.

Or a defenestration, or a cup of tea. But that's their privilege.

-- Dicey Reilly,

Acting Temporary Occasional Chairwoman for the General Assembly Sub-Committee Inquiring into General Assembly Sub-Committees and Anything Else That Comes Up, Head of the Commission for Creatively Passing the Buck, and

wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

OOC: I think you're right, it does touch on game mechanics. Which also makes it illegal.

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

(bolding added.)