NationStates Jolt Archive

U.N. Peace and Harmony Act

To be filed under Political Stability - Strong

WHEREAS “Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack”, as proclaimed by Section II Article 4 of the Rights and Duties of UN States (U.N. Resolution #49).

WHEREAS war has been defined as “a consensual act between two or more NationStates” by Section II Article 5 of the Rights and Duties of UN States (U.N. Resolution #49).

WHEREAS this body has recognized the right of “any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war” within Section II Article 5 of the Rights and Duties of UN States (U.N. Resolution #49).

WHEREAS this body “encourages all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens”, as proclaimed by the United Nations Security Act (U.N. Resolution #110).

WHEREAS “every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law”, as proclaimed by Section III Article 11 of the Rights and Duties of UN States (U.N. Resolution #49).

IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED THAT in the interest of mutual preservation of this body and all members therein, that no nation who is a member of the United Nations shall make war upon any other nation who is a member of the United Nations without first earning approval by their regional United Nations Delegate.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT a nation who is a member of the United Nations and does not gain United Nations approval for aggressive military action against another nation who is a member of the United Nations shall be internationally condemned should their actions be brought before the General Assembly by the regional delegate.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all military aggressions against nations who are not members of the United Nations by nations who are members of the United Nations shall not require approval by the General Assembly, and are beyond the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all nations who meet the criteria of a neutral state in a war involving one or more U.N. nations shall receive all the protections entitled by the Rights of Neutral States(U.N. Resolution #134).

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all United Nations member-states acting in the defense of their own sovereign territory are not bound to this resolution in any way.

"In the interest of deterring war between member nations, we sumbit The U.N. Peace and Harmony Act for public discussion. Should any member or delegate find any cause for amendment or argument, we ask that you present them here.

And while this resolution has not yet been officially filed, we intend to do so pending the preliminary discussions here.

I thank you for your time, and pray that we may all come to an agreement so that the tides of war may ebb away from our borders."

Colin Gallagher
Leirish Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Leinchester

IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED THAT in the interest of mutual preservation of this body and all members therein, that no nation who is a member of the United Nations shall make war upon any other nation who is a member of the United Nations without first earning approval by their regional United Nations Delegate.

You can't make a nation get approval from the delegate first,it's against the rules (Metagaming). (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1)

Nor could you have the General Assembly condemn anything.

You could delegate the duty of authorizing military warfare between UN Nations onto a Commitee, say, the "UN Commitee on Peace and Harmony" or the "UN Security Council"? That would (maybe) make it legal.

I also think all those resolutions you cite may lead to a HoC violation. And you provided a loophole in the "defense of their own sovereign territory" which allows for someone to sidestep a UN stamp of approval by stating that their 'territory' is at risk.

And I am against this. Many UN Nations, well, hate each other. There's nothing really that can be done, and forcing them to hug each other is just counterproductive.
---Dr. Bob

"No one may start a war without approval from their regional delegate"

Now that is very unfair. Why should role playing be put in the hands of the delegates?

"All people who break the resolution will be condemned by the general assembly"

I don't think you could force the general assembly to condem them. Wars are going to happen. If you make this a rule, there will be a trial every second.

"If you attack a non-UN member it will not require approval"

So what you're saying is, if you attack a non-UN member it is perfectly fine? That's almost forcing nations to be in the UN.

I understand you mean well, but some nations don't like each other and will start wars. There's nothing you can do. I am strongly against this resolution.

Aside from the illegalities of the proposal (which are obvious), the substance of the proposal itself poses some problems...

IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED THAT in the interest of mutual preservation of this body and all members therein, that no nation who is a member of the United Nations shall make war upon any other nation who is a member of the United Nations without first earning approval by their regional United Nations Delegate.Ah. Got it. So the Kennyites' 2005 sneak attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458061) on the Kawaiians was perfectly acceptable, since at that time OMGTKK was the regional delegate?

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT a nation who is a member of the United Nations and does not gain United Nations approval for aggressive military action against another nation who is a member of the United Nations shall be internationally condemned should their actions be brought before the General Assembly by the regional delegate.Completely unnecessary. Compliance is mandatory. Trust me, in the NS-verse there are far more serious consequences for noncompliance than mere "condemnation" by the General Assembly. Moreover, in most cases, I highly doubt that a regional delegate would hold up a member of its own region for UN condemnation.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all military aggressions against nations who are not members of the United Nations by nations who are members of the United Nations shall not require approval by the General Assembly, and are beyond the jurisdiction of the United Nations.Translation: military violence and aggression are A-OK, so long as it is only committed against non-member states.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all nations who meet the criteria of a neutral state in a war involving one or more U.N. nations shall receive all the protections entitled by the Rights of Neutral States(U.N. Resolution #134).Rights of Neutral States itself already proclaims that, it doesn't need proclaiming twice.

IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED THAT all United Nations member-states acting in the defense of their own sovereign territory are not bound to this resolution in any way.Massive loophole. Anyone can simply claim they were "acting in the defense of their own sovereign territory" if they wanted to avoid condemnation by the United Nations. Even in RL, the United States considered its invasion of Iraq a defensive action: "We're fighting them over there, so they won't fight us over here."

Then there's this:

You could delegate the duty of authorizing military warfare between UN Nations onto a Commitee, say, the "UN Commitee on Peace and Harmony" or the "UN Security Council"? That would (maybe) make it legal.It might make it "legal" (though "UN Security Council" proposals have been repeatedly struck down by moderators as illegal, so I'm not so sure), but it wouldn't make the idea behind the proposal any less perverse. For member states to outsource all decisions on military action to the United Nations isn't a mere impediment to national sovereignty, it is the end of sovereignty itself.

Tigre Soto
Speaker for the Boricuastani

You can't make a nation get approval from the delegate first,it's against the rules (Metagaming). (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1)

OOC: I didn't realize that would qualify as metagaming. Consider the proposal dead.

U.N. Peace and Harmony Act

To be filed under Political Stability - Strong



"In the interest of deterring war between member nations, we sumbit The U.N. Peace and Harmony Act for public discussion. Should any member or delegate find any cause for amendment or argument, we ask that you present them here.

And while this resolution has not yet been officially filed, we intend to do so pending the preliminary discussions here.

I thank you for your time, and pray that we may all come to an agreement so that the tides of war may ebb away from our borders."

Colin Gallagher
Leirish Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Leinchester

Our region is technically against wars with other UN countries because it does us no good,but we won't back down from the war against Islamist extremism and terrorism.
Our nation will continue to have solid Government funding for our defence capabilities and intelligence services to crack down on these Islamist millitias.
Will it contravene this act,though,if it's passed?

Sir Jack Straw
UN Ambassodor
ConservativeRepublicans

OOC: So if a nation that's currently a member of the UN has a longstanding Mutual Defence Pact with a nation that's currently outside the UN, and the latter nation were to be attacked by another UN member, the first of those nations would be forbidden to help its ally? So a UN member-nation with colonies that are themselves (of necessity) outside of the UN would be forbidden to protect those colonies against foreign aggression? Two more sound reasons for opposing any such proposal...