NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Delegates,

Please read my proposal "WA Peacekeepers" and please tell other delegates that you know to read it. Hopefully you will endorse my proposal.


All the best,

President of Batar

Unfortunately it's still a WA police force or army the way it's written, so it's illegal. Also I think the reference to Resolution 13 in Article 9 probably constitutes a House of Cards violation.

It is customary to post the content of your proposal here when requesting delegate approval.

Human Rights - Strong

Purpose of Resolution- To create a WA Peacekeeping force

Forward- According to Resolution #2- Rights and Duties of WA States, Section II, Article 5, every NationState part of the WA has a right to declare war on another NationState if and only if the opposite party also agrees and issues a declaration of war. According to Section III, Article 10 of the same resolution, The WA is not allowed to aid or commence a police or military operation. This resolution or any resolution does not suggest that there cannot be a WA Peacekeeping force.

Goal- The goal of the WA Peacekeepers is to aid civilians in unstable regions, and help stabilize and rebulid governments after events of disaster.


Section I
Requirements for Peacekeepers

Article 1-Giving support to WA Peacekeepers is voluntary and never under any circumstance is to be compulsory.

Article 2-Support can not come from a government of poor and unfair civil rights but a government with at least “good” civil rights.

Article 3-Peacekeepers cannot come from any NationState that is currently in war with another NationState.

Article 4-All WA Peacekeepers must come from only NationStates that are members of the WA.

Article 5-All NationStates that give peacekeeping support must be unbiased towards NationStates that are currently in war.


Section II
Duties of Peacekeepers

Article 6-Peacekeepers are not to engage in any police or military operations are to remain neutral.

Article 7-Peacekeepers are only to help the civilian populace, they are not allowed to help any solider that is from a country currently at war.

Article 8-Peacekeepers may be armed, but are not allowed to open fire on any person unless on rare occasions when the WA grants peacekeepers to open fire on a person/persons.

Article 9-Any peacekeeper who breaks one of these articles will be held on trial at a WA court for all charges that concern the peacekeeper. The peacekeeper will have the right to a fair trial as suggested in Resolution 13.

Article 10-An investigation will be held into the incident by a neutral party and all evidence will be presented in court.

Delete the entire first section. It's a potential "house of cards" violation - citing earlier resolutions is usually a bad thing: if those get repealed, your proposal may lose its impact.

Articles 1-5 are problematic. Resolutions cannot be entirely voluntary. They cannot select which WA members can or cannot participate - they apply equally to all WA members. Only WA members are governed by WA resolutions, so article 4 is redundant.

Articles 9 and 10 are also problems. The WA cannot establish a court or army, unless I am mistaken. This leaves 6-8. If they were cut out and expanded, I might consider that to be a good beginning of a solid proposal.

Human Rights - Strong wrong category. Of course there isn't a correct one, but International Security would come a whole lot closer

Purpose of Resolution- To create a WA Peacekeeping force

Forward- According to Resolution #2- Rights and Duties of WA States, Section II, Article 5, every NationState part of the WA has a right to declare war on another NationState if and only if the opposite party also agrees and issues a declaration of war. According to Section III, Article 10 of the same resolution, The WA is not allowed to aid or commence a police or military operation. This resolution or any resolution does not suggest that there cannot be a WA Peacekeeping force. Sorry, that's exactly what Article 10 suggests with the phrase "or otherwise participating". That's also what the WA Rules for Proposals state even more in no uncertain terms.

Goal- The goal of the WA Peacekeepers is to aid civilians in unstable regions you'd better mean geologically unstable, because anything else would make them "police" or "soldiers", and help stabilize and rebulid governments after events of disaster. Don't we have another resolution that covers disaster relief, say, perhaps resolution #5, "Coordinating Relief Aid"?

Section I
Requirements for Peacekeepers as has been stated, the WA may not have an army

Article 1-Giving support to WA Peacekeepers is voluntary and never under any circumstance is to be compulsory. Resolutions are never voluntary. All WA nations are affected

Article 2-Support can not come from a government of poor and unfair civil rights but a government with at least “good” civil rights. Metagaming and unequal treatment, neither of which are allowed.

Article 3-Peacekeepers cannot come from any NationState that is currently in war with another NationState. metagaming and roleplaying

Article 4-All WA Peacekeepers must come from only NationStates that are members of the WA. by definition, WA resolutions only affect WA nations.

Article 5-All NationStates that give peacekeeping support must be unbiased towards NationStates that are currently in war. not illegal, but meaningless


Section II
Duties of Peacekeepers

Article 6-Peacekeepers are not to engage in any police or military operations are to remain neutral. then why exactly are they called "Peacekeepers"?

Article 7-Peacekeepers are only to help the civilian populace, they are not allowed to help any solider that is from a country currently at war. By taking some of the load off of police and military, are they not 'helping' the soldiers?

Article 8-Peacekeepers may be armed, but are not allowed to open fire on any person unless on rare occasions when the WA grants peacekeepers to open fire on a person/persons. I'm guessing you'll have 18,242 ambassadors standing behind each soldier, giving him directions, since the WA doesn't vote on individual actions

Article 9-Any peacekeeper who breaks one of these articles will be held on trial at a WA court for all charges that concern the peacekeeper. The peacekeeper will have the right to a fair trial as suggested in Resolution 13. Yup. House of cards.

Article 10-An investigation will be held into the incident by a neutral party and all evidence will be presented in court. Since all WA nations are already involved in this peacekeeping force as monitors, there aren't really any 'neutral parties' around except non-WA members, who cannot be affected by this or any resolution.

Sorry, Batar. There's not much here that's legal, and no real way to salvage it into anything that would be, since your core premise is illegal. Try something else.

Interesting...lots of s there...could the Narnian trademark have possibly sparked a trend amongst the mods?

That'll be $249.95 for the royalties. Haha.

____________________
[COLOR="DarkRed"]CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia