NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently I had a proposal, entitled "UN and Domestic Jurisdiction", deleted on the grounds that it limited the UN's powers. This was it:

RESOLUTION:
No resolution passed can allow United Nations members to intrude or intervene in affairs that are fundamentally within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation. No UN resolution will require a nation to seek resolution from the UN regarding affairs that fall within domestic jurisdiction.

EXCEPTION:
Affairs of a member nation fall outside “domestic jurisdiction” when they present large-scale societal collapse which threaten the safety of other nations. That is, have the potential, and capacity for demonstrable border and cross-border consequences.

***END***

The deletion obviously means that the UN can meddle in domestic affairs, which I found odd. What kind of UN is this? Isn't the UN a body that specifically deals with international rather than domestic matters; The positive or negative interaction between nations? The reason I added the proposal in the first place was to stem the tide of resolutions coming into power that impinged upon domestic affairs of nation states, which I do not believe is/should be the role of the UN.

At worst I'd call this roleplaying, the moderators call it a "bad" proposal.

What a stupid game.

It means that the UN can (and frequently does) pass resolutions that interfere in a nation's domestic affairs. This is part of the setup of NS and the NSUN. It can't be legislated out.

Fact: The UN is extremely concerned with issues of human rights.

Fact: Human rights issues affect every aspect of society, and thus affect the domestic affairs of states.

Conclusion: The UN is concerned with the domestic affairs of states.

And that's just one example.

Fact: The UN is extremely concerned with issues of human rights.

Fact: Human rights issues affect every aspect of society, and thus affect the domestic affairs of states.

Conclusion: The UN is concerned with the domestic affairs of states.

And that's just one example.

Yes, and? The second clause makes accomodates this.

Additionally, some resolutions have passed and others have declined because the debates in forums etc. have been over whether or not it is interfering with domestic issues. I thought I'd create a resolution that defined and perhaps made this clearer. It doesn't even have to be mine if you don't like the wording, I can understand that, but I think that something like this resolution is needed.

Your proposal said the UN can not interfere with domestic affairs, full stop.

Every resolution is going to interfere with some type of domestic affair, be it crime control, drug control, education control or whatever control. So it would mean that, with very few exceptions, the UN could no longer pass any resolutions at all.

Which is clearly a violation of game mechanics, not to mention something that would kill the game completely.

That's probably why it was deleted.

Your proposal said the UN can not interfere with domestic affairs, full stop.

Every resolution is going to interfere with some type of domestic affair, be it crime control, drug control, education control or whatever control. So it would mean that, with very few exceptions, the UN could no longer pass any resolutions at all.

Which is clearly a violation of game mechanics, not to mention something that would kill the game completely.

That's probably why it was deleted.

I'll correct my earlier statement then.

It is a game with massive limitations if stipulating the role of the UN "would kill the game completely"

I'll correct my earlier statement then.

It is a game with massive limitations if stipulating the role of the UN "would kill the game completely"

Your proposal sucked. Get over it.

I'll correct my earlier statement then.

It is a game with massive limitations if stipulating the role of the UN "would kill the game completely"

It's really not.


No resolution passed can allow United Nations members to intrude or intervene in affairs that are fundamentally within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation. No UN resolution will require a nation to seek resolution from the UN regarding affairs that fall within domestic jurisdiction.


What do you define as "domestic jurisdiction"? Crime? Education? Religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of worship? Gay rights? Gender equality rights? Abortion? Prostitution? Terrorism?

What do you define as not being in "domestic jurisdiction"? The environment? Animal rights? Laws relating to the sea and to space? Mining right? Nuclear proliferation? The space race?

Ask ten different people and they will tell you ten different ways that those two lists can be changed. I would - obviously - site the list as I have. But I would also say that the UN has the duty and the right to ensure human rights are respected around the world, and most of the domestic stuff comes under basic human rights, so the UN should be permitted to pass resolutions about them.

So what if someone else feels everything is a domestic issue? That mining rights, nuclear weapons and so forth are also domestic issues? The UN could not legislate on those either.

Your proposal did not define what falls in to what category, meaning that every proposal submitted could be vetoed (for want of a better phrase) by someone saying it was a domestic issue. Pretty soon the proposal queue would be empty because no one would be bothered submitting things they know would get deleted because, by virtue of your proposal, they would be illegal.

This is a good game, and what you see as a limitation I see as its greatest strength - the fact that the UN has the right and the power to legislate on anything (more or less) that its members feel is appropriate. Because otherwise half the debates in here would never have happened, and I would have caused a massive disaster to kill my nation a long time ago.

Well, I'll just say this, the fact that people cannot distinguish the difference between domestic and international jurisdiction, in a game called Nation States where a UN exists, is yet another limitation on how the game runs.

Well, I'll just say this, the fact that people cannot distinguish the difference between domestic and international jurisdiction, in a game called Nation States where a UN exists, is yet another limitation on how the game runs.

Give me an example. If you can give me one example of something that is purely domestic, then I will reconsider your whole point.

Re your telegram:

You were warned to read the rules regarding UN proposals. Your latest UN proposal, "Towards a Better UN", demonstrates you did not. We have no choice but to remove this nation from the UN.

I am fully aware of the UN rules and what they mean, and have been for some time. I guess you are free to assume whatever you like, since I don't suppose that your making wild, presumptuous claims will prevent you from remaining a NS moderator.

Give me an example. If you can give me one example of something that is purely domestic, then I will reconsider your whole point.

The difference between international and domestic law, for starters. In this game, however, the distinction does not seem to exist.

The difference between international and domestic law, for starters. In this game, however, the distinction does not seem to exist.

I know that. I was meaning in the context of the game.

Okay - I admit, you have got me curious.

The way I see this (and feel free to correct me) there are two ways this proposal could be interpretted.

First - that the UN can not pass laws that change the laws of a local nation if the subject of the law is a domestic issue. EG the UN can not pass a law to ban abortion or enforce abortion in its member states.

Second - that the UN can not interfere in the process of laws in a local nation. So that if Mr Smith is arrested for running over a puppy in TilEnca, he can not appeal to the UN to override this decision, as the UN should have no jurisdiction.

Now - the second one has some merit. The UN is not a federal government, and should have no say over the way laws are carried out. And as far as I can tell the only resolultion that comes close to doing that is The EON Convention, as it prevents people from being tried locally for genocide.

The first one - obviously - does not have merit since it's against game rules.

So - did you mean the first or the second with your proposal?

I know that. I was meaning in the context of the game.

Well, that's my point. It's what I said earlier, there is no distinction in the game. I just thought it was ridiculous to call a game nation states when no member nation can prevent the UN from intervening in domestic issues.

The difference between international and domestic law, for starters. In this game, however, the distinction does not seem to exist.

CORRECT.

Re your telegram:

You were warned to read the rules regarding UN proposals. Your latest UN proposal, "Towards a Better UN", demonstrates you did not. We have no choice but to remove this nation from the UN.

I am fully aware of the UN rules and what they mean, and have been for some time. I guess you are free to assume whatever you like, since I don't suppose that your making wild, presumptuous claims will prevent you from remaining a NS moderator.


Or...you could just discuss this in a civil calm way? :rolleyes:

Okay - I admit, you have got me curious.

The way I see this (and feel free to correct me) there are two ways this proposal could be interpretted.

First - that the UN can not pass laws that change the laws of a local nation if the subject of the law is a domestic issue. EG the UN can not pass a law to ban abortion or enforce abortion in its member states.

Second - that the UN can not interfere in the process of laws in a local nation. So that if Mr Smith is arrested for running over a puppy in TilEnca, he can not appeal to the UN to override this decision, as the UN should have no jurisdiction.

Now - the second one has some merit. The UN is not a federal government, and should have no say over the way laws are carried out. And as far as I can tell the only resolultion that comes close to doing that is The EON Convention, as it prevents people from being tried locally for genocide.

The first one - obviously - does not have merit since it's against game rules.

So - did you mean the first or the second with your proposal?

Well, I suppose it is the second that is closer to my way of thinking. And you are correct in your example about running over the dog, well at least in my opinion. However, there have been some resolutions that have passed that can allow the UN [if it could be bothered and the game worked better so they could actually enforce resolutions], to override local/domestic legal decisions, in just the manner you proposed in your above example. I'll use the most recent because it is still fresh in our minds, not because I'm obsessing about it: "The Right to Self-Protection"

In this resolution, if a victim of crime that used "reasonable force" to stop a burglar, say, from stealing their property and was later charged with aggravated assault, this person could now appeal to the UN for a second hearing, and a possible overuling of local rule of law by the UN. Whatever the outcome of this interaction the fact that the UN can intervene at will or on appeal is enough to show that there is no distinction made between domestic and international law.

Admittedly, this is a big topic. There would be cases that may not be so black and white, etc., but there should at least be a distinction, otherwise it gets silly.

Or...you could just discuss this in a civil calm way? :rolleyes:

Don't know what you are on about. What isn't calm about the post?

iMerge.

Well, that's my point. It's what I said earlier, there is no distinction in the game. I just thought it was ridiculous to call a game nation states when no member nation can prevent the UN from intervening in domestic issues.

But of course, if your nation is not a UN nation, UN resolutions do not affect it.

*ahem* I fought the law and the law won! I fought the law and the law won!

Just give up, interfering with the game mechanics just so you are happy ruins the game for the rest of us. Besides, without those limitations, where would we get the people who b**ch and moan about the UN?

But of course, if your nation is not a UN nation, UN resolutions do not affect it.

I am quite sure that niether I nor anyone else would notice the difference anyway.

I still choose to write about and question the UN's role in NS because I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately it is just badly executed.

It is the purpose, the very purpose of the NationStates United Nations to legislate the internal affairs of its member nations. You surrender some of your national sovereignty when you join the UN. This has always been a part of NationStates design. Also remember that you may not submit proposals that would require NationStates to be reprogrammed. If you want to sugest such changes, then post in "Technical" and petition the Admins for change, along with reasons why you think anything should be changed.

The NationStates United Nations (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=un) is not the real-life United Nations (http://www.un.org).

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

It is the purpose, the very purpose of the NationStates United Nations to legislate the internal affairs of its member nations. You surrender some of your national sovereignty when you join the UN. This has always been a part of NationStates design. Also remember that you may not submit proposals that would require NationStates to be reprogrammed. If you want to sugest such changes, then post in "Technical" and petition the Admins for change, along with reasons why you think anything should be changed.

The NationStates United Nations (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=un) is not the real-life United Nations (http://www.un.org).

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

You got that right, it most definitely is not like the 'real-life' UN.

Notwithstanding this, you could at least try and live up to some of the expectations you raise in the UN description and rules, such as enforcement of resolutions, and vetting some of the resolutions that are absolutely illegible and, well, moronic. I have seen you guys let some pretty ordinary proposals slip through, which lessens the games appeal.

I have seen you guys let some pretty ordinary proposals slip through, which lessens the games appeal.
We don't "let them slip through". UN members do.

All Game Mods can do is remove proposals that are illegal. There isn't a thing they can do about "ordinary" or "stupid" proposals if they don't break any rules. It's up to the UN membership to campaign for or against the proposals they want to be voted upon.

When a proposal is clearly illegal and getting close to quorum, it would help us greatly if you reported it via a Getting Help request, and also possibly via #themodcave. We can't be everywhere at once, so your input helps.

We don't "let them slip through". UN members do.

All Game Mods can do is remove proposals that are illegal. There isn't a thing they can do about "ordinary" or "stupid" proposals if they don't break any rules. It's up to the UN membership to campaign for or against the proposals they want to be voted upon.

When a proposal is clearly illegal and getting close to quorum, it would help us greatly if you reported it via a Getting Help request, and also possibly via #themodcave. We can't be everywhere at once, so your input helps.

True. I have seen a couple of dodgy proposals that were about to be passed, but in the end I just thought it wouldn't matter to anyone whether it passed or not. This is one of the biggest problems I have with the UN in NS. But hey, that's my problem, I guess. Nobody else seems to worry.

Sounds like a good proposal to me. Everytime a proposal comes up that I feel interferes with the same issues that we get as a nation, prostitution, drugs, death penalty, etc., or issues that are really not within the UN's domain, I feel as if the UN is dictating to me and not allowing me to decide for myself. The UN must stay out of areas that are not of it's concern. It should move more into areas of international relations and trade, the enviornment and such, and keep out of domestic issues. As a rule, I vote against these meddling issues everytime. (my UN nation that is)

Sounds like a good proposal to me. Everytime a proposal comes up that I feel interferes with the same issues that we get as a nation, prostitution, drugs, death penalty, etc., or issues that are really not within the UN's domain, I feel as if the UN is dictating to me and not allowing me to decide for myself. The UN must stay out of areas that are not of it's concern. It should move more into areas of international relations and trade, the enviornment and such, and keep out of domestic issues. As a rule, I vote against these meddling issues everytime. (my UN nation that is)

Thanks for the suppport. However, the proposal I made is actually more a protest than a sincere proposal. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a good idea to review the UN rules, it's just that I knew my proposal would only last a nano second on the proposal list. That's why I also posted it in here.

Well Cup and Fork... from what I understand, you are not in the UN...

So where is the problem? If you are not in the UN (according to your Nation's page), any resolutions that pass DO NOT EFFECT YOU.

Should you wish to be in the UN for military perposes... do as I do... create an alt you care nothing about (perhaps with a silly name) and use that for military action, while keeping Cup and Fork isolated from the desisions of the generally left thinking UN.

The whole issue boils down to (and I think someone pointed this out earlier):
NationStates ≠Real Life, and therefore as Cogitation has said, NSUN ≠RLUN.

Simple no?

Well Cup and Fork... from what I understand, you are not in the UN...
He was ejected from the United Nations by a Game Moderator.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Well, I suppose it is the second that is closer to my way of thinking. And you are correct in your example about running over the dog, well at least in my opinion. However, there have been some resolutions that have passed that can allow the UN [if it could be bothered and the game worked better so they could actually enforce resolutions], to override local/domestic legal decisions, in just the manner you proposed in your above example. I'll use the most recent because it is still fresh in our minds, not because I'm obsessing about it: "The Right to Self-Protection"

In this resolution, if a victim of crime that used "reasonable force" to stop a burglar, say, from stealing their property and was later charged with aggravated assault, this person could now appeal to the UN for a second hearing, and a possible overuling of local rule of law by the UN. Whatever the outcome of this interaction the fact that the UN can intervene at will or on appeal is enough to show that there is no distinction made between domestic and international law.

Admittedly, this is a big topic. There would be cases that may not be so black and white, etc., but there should at least be a distinction, otherwise it gets silly.


Right!! I think I get where you are going with this, and the main problem you have (if I may be permitted to give advice) is the way you phrased it. As it stands now, it would stop the UN from passing any laws, which is obviously illegal and so not permitted.

And to some degree once a resolution passes, the local laws are changed to the UN laws, so it is not a matter of appealing to a higher court (eg self defence) because it would never get that far.

But if you try rephrasing it - eg "the process of law" rather than "the law" and so on - it might be less illegal (although being illegal is like being pregnant - it is or it isn't) and more acceptable :}

Thanks for your advice, TilEnca. I've been ejected from the UN anyway [lol], so it's a bit late for rewording. Unless I start again!

Sounds like a good proposal to me. Everytime a proposal comes up that I feel interferes with the same issues that we get as a nation, prostitution, drugs, death penalty, etc., or issues that are really not within the UN's domain, I feel as if the UN is dictating to me and not allowing me to decide for myself. The UN must stay out of areas that are not of it's concern. It should move more into areas of international relations and trade, the enviornment and such, and keep out of domestic issues. As a rule, I vote against these meddling issues everytime. (my UN nation that is)
The United Nations is dictating to you.

The United Nations has the power to meddle in domestic affairs. If a proposal category fits for it, then the United Nations can meddle in it. Whether or not it actually does so is decided by a vote of the UN member nations and you may feel free to vote against any proposal that you think the UN should not pass. However, you may not submit a proposal dictating what the UN may or may not legislate on; such changes require reprogramming NationStates. If you want to change what the UN can or cannot meddle in, then post in "Technical" and explain why you think the Admins should reprogram NationStates.

Thanks for your advice, TilEnca. I've been ejected from the UN anyway [lol], so it's a bit late for rewording. Unless I start again!
You could start again. Just remember to post a draft of the proposal in the United Nations forum before you submit the proposal to the UN.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Actually, the real UN does sometimes step across the boundary of international vs. domestic issues, in particular it does so with ... *drum roll* human rights related issues.

The classic most famous example of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). It is also among one of the most ignored real life UN documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

There is no doubt in my mind that it is wise to consider proposals that limit the ability of players (in our game) to address wide ranges of topics on a vaguely defined catch phrase (i.e. the UN shouldn't vote on domestic issues).

However, there is no reason that when a legal UN resolution that you or any other player feels violates domestic sovereignty hits the UN floor, that you shouldn't campaign and debate against the idea.

In fact, a year ago Frisbeeteria and others foresaw the "domestic vs. international" debate being one of the biggest issues that the NSUN would face, and thus decided to draft and advocate for a resolution that could be used in roleplay:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #49
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: 15,083
Votes Against: 3,395
Implemented: Tue Feb 24 2004


In the real UN, I've recently pointed out in a MUN thread that the UN actually does have the ability to not only interfere with domestic laws (under extreme situations), but has in the past responded to threats to international security ... here the classic examples are the Korean War and the US-Iraq wars. In fact, the real UN Charter, Chapter VII, is all about spelling out the general circumstances when the UN can respond, and via force if necessary.

The reality is that the NSUN is not as difference from the real UN as one might think. :)

My parting advice is to just join one of the many "sovereign rights" coalitions. The number of repeals and support for quality UN resolutions has increased dramatically in 2004 and early 2005. The NSUN is not the same organization it was in Jan. 2004, and I think the "Rights and Duties" resolution was the first response to moving the organization in a way to better respect sovereignty. The second response was a shift from the fire and forget one-liner resolutions, to a more formal UN resolution format. The next step is for nations to roleplay and use the loopholes presented in the Rights and Duties and play with what we are given.

The major difference in NSUN and the real UN isn't the international vs. domestic issue (sovereign rights debate), but the inability for NationStates UN resolutions to condemn or target specific roleplayed nations / actions. In the real UN, we can condemn Israel for its occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In NationStates doing so would quickly result in a UN strike.

I honestly hope that NS2 will address this issue, in addition to giving moderators the ability to assign hidden impacts to resolutions ... thus making the differences between any two Human Rights resolutions more significant.