NationStates Jolt Archive

How does one go about getting a mod ruling (from Hack, I presume) on the legality of a proposal?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9223674&postcount=6

Thanks!

"Military partnerships" are roleplay. In the same sense that the UN Gnomes come in and change any other law, they would also back you out of any alliances. While that may break regional rules, the UN doesn't recognize those rules, so they are irrelevant.

Your argument revolves around ejection, but I don't see ejection listed anywhere in the proposal. Far as I can tell, it's legal.

I agree with my associate here.

While this isn't an arguement that would result in deletion, it is certainly perfectly legitamate to use when the Proposal comes up to vote.

I agree with my associate here.

While this isn't an arguement that would result in deletion, it is certainly perfectly legitamate to use when the Proposal comes up to vote.Then if I may indulge you for a minute, were the current proposal in queue to pass, then this proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9235404&postcount=1) would be illegal, right (in light of the phrase quoted below)?
THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY DECLARE ... THAT NOW AND HENCEFORTH, we shall be considered A GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MUTUAL DEFENCE AGAINST AGGRESSION...Or would it be safe to conclude that, since the proscribed weapons are proscribed (duh!) for all U.N. Members, that an alliance of all U.N. Member nations could never be construed as a "military partnership" with a nation possessing "bio-weapons" as defined in the proposal, because Members could never possess such weapons anyway?

Answer?

Have you ever considered a world without hypothetical questions?


Get something like that close to queue, and I'll look at it. I don't do quotes in isolation.

Or would it be safe to conclude that, since the proscribed weapons are proscribed (duh!) for all U.N. Members, that an alliance of all U.N. Member nations could never be construed as a "military partnership" with a nation possessing "bio-weapons" as defined in the proposal, because Members could never possess such weapons anyway?

If I might comment, I don't personally see a conflict between the phrase you quoted and the biological weapons ban. This one further down in the proposal might have caused a conflict:

That all nations have the right to enter into defencive agreements, which we call “alliances”,

Except that conflict is resolved further down with this qualifier:

THESE RIGHTS AND DUTIES, as well as the rights, duties, and obligations of Member nations under the terms of our Global Alliance, shall not be understood to permit any Member to take any action proscribed by any United Nations Resolution, nor prevent any action required by any such Resolution, nor relieve any Member of its obligations under any such Resolution, under any circumstance.

So... looks legal to me as far as a conflict with the biological weapons ban goes.

However...

That all nations have both a right and a duty to aid nations in the exercise of their right to self-defence, an act which we call “collective defence”,

That "duty" part might cause a problem. Depends if it's ruled to create a binding requirement. That would quite possibly put the resolution in violation of the "no UN army" rule by requiring the UN membership as a whole to effectively create a collective military defense force in the event of an attack on a UN member.

My unofficial $0.02...