NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft for a ULN constitution. Please feel free to make any comments or suggestions on it and when we are decided upon a final version a vote will be held.

We the members of the Union of Liberal Nations believe that it every human should have the right to be free from the evils of oppression, prejudice and dictatorship. We believe that all people are born into this world equal and free. However, the society of the enemies of our primal truths, the dictators and totalitarians, have built creates unnatural titles and places for us. Ideas such as slavery, sexism and racism are the products of the many years of tyranny which have gripped our world and we believe these notions to be both preposterous and foul.

The ULN will not take any military action as a group against or for another nation recognized as sovereign unless unanimity is reached. The members of the ULN shall not wage war against each other. Should more than one member of the ULN get involved in a conflict, the ULN shall hold a vote on which side to support. Members do not have to take military action in any conflict, unless it is on the soil of a member of the ULN, however they are forbidden for supporting a side hostile to the one the ULN is suporting.

Freedom in expression and opinion are the most venerable ideals of Liberalism. Without such liberties no person is completely free. All people should be allowed to hold whatever views they believe in and have the freedom of speech with which to express these views.

Furthermore, we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves to constantly safeguard our citizens' rights and to always ensure they enjoy a government that is, willingly, supported by the people. Also, the ULN recognizes that approval ratings alone can not be the basis of any evaluation of a state. In accordance with this, the ULN, nor any of its member states, will not aggressively insert itself, or themselves, into any nation seeking to change the government of said nation "for the people or their benefit," unless preempted by a mandate of the people in the form of a revolution.

These are the basic beliefs of the ULN, as decided and agreed upon by we, the undersigned.

This is a draft for a ULN constitution. Please feel free to make any comments or suggestions on it and when we are decided upon a final version a vote will be held.

Don't mind if I do. I assume that means I can pick it apart as well.

We the members of the Union of Liberal Nations believe that it is the basic right of every human being

I am sorry, but human beins do not have basic rights. Perhaps, 'We the members of the Union of Liberal Nations believe that every human should have the righ...'?

to be free from the evils of fear, oppression, prejudice and dictatorship.

remove 'the evils' and 'fear,' because no one can ever be truly free of fear.

We believe that all people are born into this world equal and free. However, the society which the enemies of our primal truths have built creates unnatural titles and places for us. Ideas such as slavery, sexism and racism are the products of the many years of tyranny which have gripped our world and we believe these notions to be both preposterous and foul.

This section is not too bad. Slavery, sexism racism bad. However who are these enemies of our primal truths and what are these unnatural titles and places?

We support the ideals of elected, democratic government and understand that unless leadership is supported by the majority of the people of a nation then that government is not a true one.

Hold on! 'true' government is de facto government. changing it to '...should not be in power' instead of '...is not a true one.' more accurately reflects what it is.

Therefore it is our steadfast belief that dictators and dictatorships are not real forms of government

What if the citizens support the dictatorship? What about monarchies?

and we will not support such nations.

One of my closest allies is an absolute monarchy.

Electing a leadership is ever citizen’s right.

a leadership? ever? And there we go with the rights again. perhaps 'Electing one's government should be every human's right'?

Freedom in expression and opinion are the most venerable ideals of Liberalism. Without such liberties no person is completely free. All people should be allowed to hold whatever views they believe in and have the freedom of speech with which to express these views.

What about those classified as mentally ill? I don't want to have to release the commies.

These are the basic beliefs of the ULN, as decided and agreed upon by we, the undersigned.

Ok. Those may be basic beliefs but that only means that our nations share ideology. What are we going to do as a group of like minded nations?

How about this-
Furthermore we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves never to breach the rights of our people and to always ensure that they enjoy a democratic system of government with checks and balances to ensure against a concentration of power that threatens our democratic existence. We go further to agree that, as members of the alliance, we all have the right to defend ourselves and each other from totalitarianism. Should any ULN state be attacked by an outside power we will all move to the defence of that state. Should there be any internal attempt to dissolve a member states democracy the alliance has the right to intervene, sensibly, to safeguard the people.

Sounds good. Mutual defence and an agreement of democracy essentially. Perhaps free trade too as that is keeping with this alliance's ideology?

Made some changes. Concerning your friendship with an absolute monarchy Uiri, I think it's ok to continue that. It's just that the ULN as a whole won't aid or assist them.

I would support some more of Uiri's changes being made. Like people should be able to elect government.

Is that not explained properly in the second paragraph?

I think Borman means electing one's form of government (monarchy, dictatorship, republic, etc.) rather than democracy.

Kinda. I mean, you can't completely narrowly define democracy as the only good or allowable government. I've ran into liberal dictatorships in my stint here. We need to open the definition to include other forms of government. However, I do like the mention of having their citizens at large support the leader.

Yes, that is what I meant. Clearly a dictatorship with popular opposition (whether open or not) is not an allowable form of government.

Oh right, I see. I'm presuming what you want me to do is rephrase it so that it omits references to "democratic" and "dictatorships" so that it is more inclusive?

How about:

We believe that unless leadership is supported by the majority of the people of a nation then that government should not be in power. Therefore it is our steadfast belief that any government not supported by its subjects is not an acceptable form of leadership and we, as a united body of like minded countries, will not support such nations. Only if the majority, without hindrance and of their own free will, support a leadership will it be considered acceptable. Electing one's governmnt should be every citizen's right.

To replace:

We support the ideals of elected, democratic government and understand that unless leadership is supported by the majority of the people of a nation then that government should not be in power. Therefore it is our steadfast belief that dictators and dictatorships are not real forms of government and we will not support such nations, unless the citizens of that nation support their leaders according to their own free will. Electing one's governmnt should be every citizen's right.

Include provisions for cult of personality's. If the citizens are brainwashed they can't count.

Made some edits. Better?

I do not bielieve that we as a union of likeminded nations have the right to pass judgement on whether another nations government is "acceptable" or not. how about the union of liberal nations will only endoarse another nation if a magority of members without hinderance and under their own free will support the endorsment

What edits?

We can agree to recognize or not recognize a legitimate government, RL countries do that all the time. Look at Kosovo.

I think endorse is better, as well.

I think both points are valid, but there's not realy any major difference between "endorsing" and deciding what is "acceptable" is there? However, seeing as "endorse" still allows us to recognise or not recognise governments individualy, whilst not forcing other members to agree, I think "endorse" is probably better, as well as being somewhat less strict and decisive. I'd be interested to hear any arguments for or aginst this though...

Well, I'm no political analyst, but I like the current draft. And about the argument of "endorsing" countries, I think it should be up to the individual member nations to recognize or endorse governments, not up to the ULN. To use a RL example, the EU doesn't recognize new nations, the members do.

I fully agree to Vaarshire's points.

Hmm, that certainly is true

perhaps remove the part altogther then?

Yeah. If a situation, unlikely, calls for an entire alliance regonition or condemnation, we can vote on it as an alliance. But otherwise, we should mainly just go with nations doing so themselves.

how about the UNL will not take on any millitary action against or for another sovreign nation unless there is a unanimous vote in favour of such

The ULN will not take any military action as a group against or for another nation recognized as sovereign unless unanimity is reached. The members of the ULN shall not wage war against eachother.

how about the UNL will not take on any millitary action against or for another sovreign nation unless there is a unanimous vote in favour of such

I like this

Furthermore we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves never to breach the rights of our people and to always ensure that they enjoy a democratic system of government with checks and balances to ensure against a concentration of power that threatens our democratic existence.

You know, democracy isn't the best government ever. How about something like,

Furthermore, we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves to constantly safeguard our citizens' rights and to always ensure they enjoy a government that is, willingly, supported by the people.

We should also make some kind of addendum speaking towards approval ratings. After all, if a president, leader, etc. has low approval ratings we don't want to enable that to be justification for tearing down the government. Maybe adding something like

Also, the ULN recognizes that approval ratings alone can not be the basis of any evaluation of a state. In accordance with this, the ULN, nor any of its member states, will not aggressively insert itself, or themselves, into any nation seeking to change the government of said nation "for the people or their benefit," unless preempted by a mandate of the people in the form of a revolution.

You know, democracy isn't the best government ever. How about something like,

Furthermore, we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves to constantly safeguard our citizens' rights and to always ensure they enjoy a government that is, willingly, supported by the people.

We should also make some kind of addendum speaking towards approval ratings. After all, if a president, leader, etc. has low approval ratings we don't want to enable that to be justification for tearing down the government. Maybe adding something like

Also, the ULN recognizes that approval ratings alone can not be the basis of any evaluation of a state. In accordance with this, the ULN, nor any of its member states, will not aggressively insert itself, or themselves, into any nation seeking to change the government of said nation "for the people or their benefit," unless preempted by a mandate of the people in the form of a revolution.

I second these amendments

how about the UNL will not take on any millitary action against or for another sovreign nation unless there is a unanimous vote in favour of such

The problem with this is that what about individual states? Does it mean collectively or does it include individual members? What if a sovereign nation is recognized by some members and not others? What if two ULN members get in opposite sides of a conflict? How about the following:

Should more than one member of the ULN get involved in a conflict, the ULN shall hold a vote on which side to support. Members do not have to take military action in any conflict, unless it is on the soil of a member of the ULN, however they are forbidden for supporting a side hostile to the one the ULN is suporting.

You know, democracy isn't the best government ever. How about something like,

Furthermore, we, the member nations of the ULN, commit ourselves to constantly safeguard our citizens' rights and to always ensure they enjoy a government that is, willingly, supported by the people.

We should also make some kind of addendum speaking towards approval ratings. After all, if a president, leader, etc. has low approval ratings we don't want to enable that to be justification for tearing down the government. Maybe adding something like

Also, the ULN recognizes that approval ratings alone can not be the basis of any evaluation of a state. In accordance with this, the ULN, nor any of its member states, will not aggressively insert itself, or themselves, into any nation seeking to change the government of said nation "for the people or their benefit," unless preempted by a mandate of the people in the form of a revolution.

Thirded.

Just to clarify, you want me to remove the entire paragraph and replace it? Or would it be better to just replace a few lines? Any opinions?

Remove it and replace it from what I understood. Afterall, democracy does have its flaws which we accept and should not force our model of government upon others.

I agree, but if anyone has any opinions against the change feel free to express them.

What about Borman's suggestion? It was supported by him (or her) self, Zoingo and I? Do they not have more right to be in the constitution than my edits?

Bormann's suggestion has already been added.

Hold on - so a Socialist Democracy is better in the eyes of the United Liberal Nations than a Liberal dictatorship?

In the original draft yes, but these errors have now, fortunately, been ammended.

Hold on - so a Socialist Democracy is better in the eyes of the United Liberal Nations than a Liberal dictatorship?

I thought socialist democracy was an oxymoron.

In anycase, the second is obviously better.

-snip-

It's actually been changed since those words, and what we have now seems to be fine. I think the only possible addition would be small clause such as

In the event that two ULN members become active in a current conflict they can raise a motion to vote for official ULN involvement.

Well, I believe there is no need, for the only time the ULN needs to adopt an official position is when two members conflict. It would just be a de jure confirmation of a de facto situation.

Excellent point, so then let's just leave that part how it is.

I thought socialist democracy was an oxymoron.

In anycase, the second is obviously better.

It is an oxymoron, the two are obviously near opposites

how about:
we as members of the union of liberal nations hold dear to the belif that as long as war, famine, plagues and poverty exsit conservatism is a flawed philosophy

Conservativism? Conservativism in which sense? For it all depends on the context of those words. Assuming you mean Libertarian Conservatism, I must thoroughly disagree.

Patrachus, I must thoroughly disagree and label that as an inherently incorrect and flawed statement, and in every way advocate keeping it as far from the constitution as possible.