NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that the World War is coming to a close, we need to look at the future of Earth II; as several people have pointed out, many of the nations in EII don't really have much character development. A United Nations would be an excellent tool in this regard, as we can meet each other in peaceful situations and interact in ways that allow us to develop our nations more alongside each other.

Before any IC organisation can be created, we need to answer a few questions:

1. Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?

2. What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?

4. Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?

Anyone got any thoughts?

well, 3+4 can somewhat work together, the larger nation (Lay, you, TLS, Rome, Cotland, maybe me) being available for permanent spots, and newer participants cycling through positions. Monthly rotations maybe. I might join, depends on the rules and reguations. Oh and we need to make sure it doesnt kill all chances of wars in EII.

1. Yes, a UN will be helpful (but it shouldn't be too helpful)

2. If most of the nations are in the UN, it could use sanctions, embargos, blockades, total isolation, or at worst, actual invasions.

3. Same as above

4. I think the idea of permanent members is stupid. The permanent members dominate all aspects (look at U.S.), don't follow resolutions when things don't go their way (again, look at U.S.) and maintain their seats even when they are past their peak and have little or no influence (Look at Britain and France)

I would like to be in the U.N.

I also think that either A. Nations that participate alot and have populations over 1.5 billion should be permament, or B. everyone is permament.

I'd like to join as well. I agree with the Security Council being organised similar to the RL one.

Count me in.

1.Q: Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?
A:yes. to settle big things between nations, that will ultimatly become realllllly deadly(eg n00ks and stuff). also to unite the world0rz

2. Q: What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?
A:send in the troops, impose sanctions, blockades...

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?
NA

4. Q:Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?
A:i would like to see it the same as rl. I would like to be on teh security council and maby have my rep be an officer or board member of it... something like that.

one quick question, would we have to join the un in ns.net?

The UN is a noble cause no doubt, but I think outside alliances will prevail over the UN. Look at a real world example, OPEC controls the price of oil by limiting/increasing production. The current UN is on the sidelines asking nicely for OPEC to play along. Then you have the oil for food scandal that so many were caught with there hands in the cookie jar.

The UN can issue sanctions, deploy peace-keepers and can actually declare war on a country as a body (Korean War). The diplomatic channels are usually the best methods to persuade a nation to come into line with policies, but some nations will simply carry on and ignore these events (North Korea RL) even when the people of there country suffer. Plus their are always rogue states will be willing to sell commodities, raw materials, etc. to nations in need for the right price.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of the UN and will probably join, but the devil is in the details/requirements to be a member. If push comes to shove, my alliance to nations that have assisted me comes first, any alliance I belong to second, and the UN last.

This should make for a good set of RP's though and I look forward to the mess/problems and solutions it generates.

-Hawdawg

Well, as the leader of the MESC, which may become the new OPEC, we will try to work with the UN as much as we can, but the Coalition as a whole will make its descisions and we will enforce those, no matter what they be.

Rome, Mari, disregard my TGs about starting a thread for this lol!!!

1. No. The UN is inefficient in real life, it won't work better with a few idealistic young adults running it. That's just my opinion, of course. But I happen to think that the WW has a ways to go yet.

2. N/A

3. If there is one, I won't join. I've always done my own thing.

4. Which one of us is trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to run it, or be a part of a council? Appoint a leader and you undermine the whole organization. Good luck with that.

Also, if everyone becomes a bleeding-heart UN member, where will the fun be?

1. No. The UN is inefficient in real life, it won't work better with a few idealistic young adults running it. That's just my opinion, of course. But I happen to think that the WW has a ways to go yet.

2. N/A

3. If there is one, I won't join. I've always done my own thing.

4. Which one of us is trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to run it, or be a part of a council? Appoint a leader and you undermine the whole organization. Good luck with that.

Also, if everyone becomes a bleeding-heart UN member, where will the fun be?

1. Erm, it's over. Done. Finished.

2. N/A

3. That's too bad. Also, how can you do your own thing if you are a member of the October Alliance, hmmm? You should revise your statement to "I almost always do my own thing".

4. I say someone level headed, like Layarteb or Rome. Or, if you want someone who enforces the U.N. using more...unorthodox methods, choose me :).

5. Hey, even bleeding-heart U.N. members blow each others brains out :).

1. Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?

Well, my idea of this UN is simply a body where nations can go to if they have disputes and need a "third party". It'd act more like a world court than an actual physical alliance- and, depending on our preferences, these rulings could just simply be a "reference" as opposed to binding legislation.

2. What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?

Well, if we go the route where the UN actually passes binding laws (or makes binding rulings) then embargoes and actual military conflict may be the way to go- although I personally would not like it to go this far.

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?

Who knows until we implement it? I'm personally in.

4. Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?

Something different- as I said before, it'd just be a forum where we can resolve disputes. No messy resolutions or anything else.

1. No, there is no need for a UN, but that is not to say it wouldn't be useful.
2. It would have no powers over non-members, and no right to enforce anything on non-UN members, unless a non-UN member attacks a UN member. It could use embargos, troops, it could also help quel terrorist dissidents, as in my current RP.
3. Layarteb will not join the UN, so don't bother asking (probably) and maybe NG, infact, many large nations.
4. Permant members, mostly the big nations who can commit many troops.

Finally: NO F*ing Vetos!

I'm not sure if I'll join just yet. I want to hear more before I make up my mind.

From what I'm reading, it looks like the best format would be a League of Nations-style organisation, except with a bit more backbone.

The organisation would be comprised of nations which have voluntarily joined, and they meet in a forum-style gathering to discuss international affairs. There would be no formal hierarchy, but in practise larger nations would probably be listened to more than smaller ones; unfortunately that's just life.

Each nation would have one vote when it came to deciding action (embargo, war, peace-keeping, whatever), with a majority needed to pass anything.

Any other thoughts?

Star, your lands are looking mighty tasty. And it wasn't like I didn't have my eyes on your lands before.

The OA is a strict military alliance, we don't govern each other nor set any sort of standards. So yes, I DO do my own thing. I just have in excess of twelve billion comrades from the other member nations, should military aid be required. Cheers.

I like the League of Nations idea as opposed to teh Security Council Idea.

1. Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?
Yes I think we should have one. If, at the very least, it will add new variables for roleplaying and new variables for just about everything.

2. What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?
Obviously we should make this UN far better than the real-life one. Perhaps remove most of the beaucracy that bogs down the real UN.

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?
I myself will not be joining.

4. Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?
I think we should use that as a guide & model but not limit ourselves to it.

1. Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?

A UN will be fun to have in Earth II and it can be used as another way to RP then just declaring war.

2. What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?

N/A

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?

I don't know but my nation won't be joining the UN. My nation's foreign policy is really based on not taking orders from anybody else.

4. Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?

It should be structured differently because the current U.N. is really bad and I don't believe in having permanent members on the security council.

1. Do we really want a UN in the first place? What purpose do we want it to serve in Earth II?

Yes I want a UN, and I want it to be fun.

2. What sort of powers would this UN have to assert its authority over rogue or disobedient nations?

The power to destroy them.

3. How many larger nations will deliberately not join in order to act as they wish, and how would the UN respond to any belligerent acts by such non-members?

Iunno, but they would NUKE 'EM


4. Will the UN be structured as the RL one is, or something different? If we use the RL structure, which nations would be permamnent Security Council members?

Like the NS One, but better looking and simpler. And now Security Council... unless I'm in it.

Though, I might not join anyway for NtG's reason x.x

I wouldn't join because I don't want my actions subject to scrutiny by other countries. National sovereignty > j00.

That said, if this gets set up, I suppose the UN could play a role in my (possible) final EII RP in which Tyrandis undergoes a fundamentalist religious revolution ala Iran, resulting in the invasion of "heathen" countries (read: everyone). Reason I'm doing this is I don't want to simply be partitioned off when I leave for China in the summer. I want every piece of land of Australia/NZ seized by land-hungry opportunists to be paid for in rivers of blood.

From what I'm reading, it looks like the best format would be a League of Nations-style organisation, except with a bit more backbone.

The organisation would be comprised of nations which have voluntarily joined, and they meet in a forum-style gathering to discuss international affairs. There would be no formal hierarchy, but in practise larger nations would probably be listened to more than smaller ones; unfortunately that's just life.

Each nation would have one vote when it came to deciding action (embargo, war, peace-keeping, whatever), with a majority needed to pass anything.

Any other thoughts?
thats sort of how my country works, with the Nine Sultans meeting to decide on issues. The Sultans of India and Arabia, for example, have one vote just like everyone else, but they have more influence than say Antartica and Qatar. I think, like Rome said on the main thread, democracy (or something like it) should be encouraged. Rome is the only true democracy, but Elephantum, TLS, and other countries are semi-democracies. In mine for example, their is no vote, but the people have an unoffical say in things.

I wouldn't join because I don't want my actions subject to scrutiny by other countries. National sovereignty > j00.

That said, if this gets set up, I suppose the UN could play a role in my (possible) final EII RP in which Tyrandis undergoes a fundamentalist religious revolution ala Iran, resulting in the invasion of "heathen" countries (read: everyone). Reason I'm doing this is I don't want to simply be partitioned off when I leave for China in the summer. I want every piece of land of Australia/NZ seized by land-hungry opportunists to be paid for in rivers of blood.
you do kno wabout decree 13, the vacation clause, don't you?

uh kreynoria.... its all relative mate


Britain and France are still hugely Influential and wealthy nations. they just arent as "powerful" as the U.S anymore....

Britains SAS and military is second to none in the world( In terms of training and skill). Iam a kiwi so its quite a deal to complement a POM on something. ( Its an Endearment British Participants. much like Yank). no offense meant :) )

If you define a nations Influence by how many arms it has. Russia would still be on top and China too. :)


but to remain on topic I am all for the Un but i agree with Kreynoria about the G7 and how much contraversy it would bring up..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9167784&postcount=26

We need to get the UN going because of ideas like this!!!

yep i agree. but im not going to ruled under the thumb of oil for food, corruptable weak minded fools that constitute todays U.N. staff ( or the majority including kofi Annan)

So has anyone decided on anything?

Possible idea:

All who want to join, join, then elect a leader or however you want to set it up.

I have too many things going on this next week to organize this, but I am willing to join the Organization. I say we set it up like the old League of Nations, have voluntary membership and elect a small group amongst ourselves to act as the governing council. The large body could meet once a month for general issues and the smaller elected group could meet more frequently to handle issues that creep up between mainbody meetings. Everyone would have an equal vote and representation. Someone please take this and run with it, I am tired of talking things to death.


-Hawdawg

Okay, I guess it's settled then. I'm off on a shopping jaunt somewhere this morning/afternoon, but I'll set up the official EII UN thread when I get back.

I suggest we elect a governing council once we know how many nations are going to be in the finalised organisation; if there's anyone from EII reading this who hasn't already stated whether they'll be joining or not, please either post here or TG me.

Coolness.

So its settled on a League of Nations-esque approach? If so, then I'm in.

Count me in too.

How would the security council be elected?

I'd be willing to be one of the larger nations that refuses to join because I enjoy being the group misanthrope.

Cotland will not join the UN/Leauge of Nations.

How would the security council be elected?

I'm still considering this; it'll depend on how many people join, as the number of nations that are members will affect how large the council would be. I'd prefer maybe four or five council members, but if there's only ten member nations then there should be maybe two or three. If anyone has any ideas for how to run the elections, feel free to put them forward.

We'd really need a shortlist of possible council nations before any elections, so we'd need to determine which nations would be most effective as council members.

i am in and am running for office