NationStates Jolt Archive

Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN States Resolution states and I quote

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Whole Resolution

Rights and Duties of UN States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability Strength: Significant Proposed by: Frisbeeteria
Description: : UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates. A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States: Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Section II: The Art of War: Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons. Article 6 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife. Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. Article 8 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5. Section III: The Role of the United Nations: Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State. Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Article 11 § 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.

Votes For: 15083

Votes Against: 3395

Once it reaches the resolution stage, it's impossible for the moderators to do anything about it.

Also, if it made it that far, the mods have must likely already seen it.

Why d'you think it's against that past resolution? The same could be said about any and every resolution that's passed.

what TH said, yeah

post count +1

Article 1 clearly states "...without dictation by any other NationState, ALL ITS LEGAL POWERS, including the choice of its own form of government."(emphasis added) I interpret legal powers as a way for the government to enforce its laws in order to protect the freedoms of its citizens in a manner that the people decide.

I think the Death Penalty Resolution will bomb anyway, but for future non execution believers I think this should be done.

Any Mods have an opinion on this???

Any Mods have an opinion on this???

Be patient. They'll answer soon enough.

Resolutions cannot limit the power of the UN.
That particular resolution has been earmarked for deletion by the admin.

That particular resolution has been earmarked for deletion by the admin.

I fail to see how banning the death penalty constitutes deletion by the admin.

Why is that resolution up for deletion? It was elected upon and passed with a clear majority of votes. I like the resolution. It does change the rules a little bit, but if you go back and delete this resolution, why not the one that legalizes euthenasia, or the one that mandates healthcare. Enodia would have caught this early on. Don't mean to sound rude but he would have.

Exactly. The more laws you make, the more you restrict freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom from fear, religous freedom. I actually don't have to write a proposal, it was already done and passed. The death penalty ban resolution up for vote is illegal because it conflicts with the following resolution

Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN States Resolution states and I quote

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Not this again...

Imagine you're playing a game of chess against me and you move your king, I respond that you cannot move your king to that square because if my queen could move like a knight your king would be in check and since moving your king into check is illegal that move would be illegal.

It's a false cause fallacy; even though the second part is correct, the first part cannot happen so it is completely irrelevant. You might as well ask what would happen if checkmate didn't end the game or a pawn could take every piece on the board. This is the same; protecting sovereignty in a resolution is illegal and repeals are equally illegal, so why should we allow this clause to be an illegal 'protection of sovereignty' clause and then still care about repeals?

Not that it actually is a protection of sovereignty clause, as reading it in context shows:

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

UN law is superior to your own laws. The UN is also not another Nationstate, so Section I doesn't apply to it. [presumably it actually applies to other UN nations trying to force you to change national policy with embargos or similiar]

That particular resolution has been earmarked for deletion by the admin.

I fail to see how banning the death penalty constitutes deletion by the admin.

I meant the Rights and Duties etc. proposal.
But seeing as GMC's already clobbered it's references to national sovereignty, I guess it won't need removing after all. Guess I should read the actual resolution instead of trusting the forumers, heh.

Why is that resolution up for deletion? It was elected upon and passed with a clear majority of votes. I like the resolution. It does change the rules a little bit, but if you go back and delete this resolution, why not the one that legalizes euthenasia, or the one that mandates healthcare. Enodia would have caught this early on. Don't mean to sound rude but he would have.

Furthermore, that resolution was passed with Enodia ruling that it was within the rules. If we're going to start deleting resolutions, there's a fairly lengthy list of resolutions that should go first.

Just so nobody blames me for proposal-eating servers or anything, I've been in communication with Frisbeeteria and he has allayed any suspicions I have about the proposal. Therefore, I am not going to touch it until it comes to a general vote, at which point I will vote on the matter.

DISCUSSION: Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2729564#2729564)

what TH said, yeah

[size=1] post count +1 [size] that is just stupid. and yep when it is read carefully the argument collapses

Ah, Myrth, after rereading the thread I see where I went wrong... my apologizes for my misunderstanding.

I fail to see how banning the death penalty constitutes deletion by the admin.

Ironic eh?

I wouldnt class this as any wrong personally.

How positively giggly.

If I'm reading correctly, the venerated nation of Ukroatia is using a UN resolution to attempt to undermine the powers of the moderators.

Well... all I can say to this is... if the UN passes a resolution saying 'no' to a US-led invasion of Iraq, does this mean that the United States is the moderator of the World?

I rather like this post.

~The Humoured Illustrious Spadge
The Federated Stellar Republics of Wormia

On a more moddish note... shouldn't this be in the UN forum?

Either there's a lot of people talking past one another above, or I'm missing something here.

As far as I know, mods do not enforce passed resolutions so demanding a passed resolution should be removed due to a conflict with a previously passed resolution doesn't work.

Also, to my understanding it is perfectly valid to make a resolution covering the same topic as a previous one, yet deciding differently on the issue. Basically this overrules the previous one. You're just not capable of repealing the previous resolution, so they'll both remain on the books.

Ballotonia