Listeneisse
14-10-2005, 20:35
Under this thread about "Donating" Forces to UN (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9794880#post9794880), I know it is just not possible to directly grant forces to the "UN." The gnomes don't need guns to do their work. There is no UN "standing army."
The original poster and I have being steered towards a different tact entirely.
What is the limitations upon the use of the term "United Nations" in regard to military operations conducted by member nations?
What might be the limitations of member nations for officially wearing uniforms or marking vehicles "UN" and flying the UN flag?
Just as the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols are vital emblems and names, so would the UN emblem, flag and name.
For instance, using the UN IRCO, we can roleplay UN humanitarian missions, saying we are Red Cross workers acting as per the UN IRCO. There is a forum for roleplaying with the UN IRCO (though it's not very active), and you can even get a UN IRCO symbol for your Forum account if you ask nicely. Similarly for TPP, etc.
Likewise, just about anyone can create a UNA Chapter. All you need to do is say you are opening a UNA Chapter, and voila! Begin a thread in a roleplaying forum.
However, because of the "3rd rail of moderation" -- "No UN army!" -- people have been avoiding using the term "UN peacekeepers."
A poorly-worded draft in 2004 was shot off the radar because it implied raising a UN army, and I know other proposals come along all the time up to the present day. Again, I am not proposing anything be donated to the "UN."
What is being contemplated is somehow to allow UN member nations to band together, operate and roleplay under all appropriate UN humanitarian, national security, and disarmament proposals, and allow responses to be done through a "UN-blessed process."
Unless the mods would see this as permissible, they could not call themselves "UN peacekeepers" or on a "UN peacekeeping mission."
Obviously, if only 2-3 players out of the entire UN were roleplaying in a thread, they could not claim that they were truly acting "on behalf of the UN."
It is also impermissible to make a UN resolution targetting a nation, so you cannot declare a sanction against "Bobville," pass an "I hate Bobville" resolution (even if everyone would vote for it) and then go bomb him and claim you did it as "the UN."
No, these things are legal or desireable.
However, we might let people claim they are "on a military or peacekeeping missions acting in accord to UN Resolution #(n): "UN Member Security Provision."
It would, of course, get shortened into parlance as "UN peacekeeping mission," but the technical distinction is semantically important.
They are UN members, on a peacekeeping mission, operating under guidelines established for such passed by UN resolutions.
That does not mean the UN has, as a body of the whole or in part, officially blessed, reviewed, approved, or even acknowledged their nation's actions.
But such a provision would affirm member nations' rights to organize, and by invitation-of-a-participant-only, intercede on each other's behalf for cases of defense in time of international war, work for establishment of peace in time of internal revolt or civil war, or provide response to humanitarian crises or natural catastrophes, operating at all times within the rules of the UN national security, disarmament, and humanitarian rights.
If permissible by the mods, they could fly the UN flag to identify them as operating within the guidelines of engagement set forth by the UN, so long as they were UN members in good standing and operated according to all UN provisions related to the conduct of war.
However, they would be limited to never say they represented the UN, or were the UN's "army." They would simply be operating under UN-blessed guidelines for military conduct, whether defensive action (say, UN member nations rallying to stop a non-UN member from invading a member state), peacekeeping or humanitarian operations.
The forces remain those of their respective nations. They are not transferred to the UN as a legal entity.
Many people these days mock the UN in the forums as toothless and disinteresting. But as far as I can see, this seems to be legal, and possibly quite effective. I am hoping it kicks up some dust. As far as I can see, what I propose is legal.
Whether it ever passes quorum, or gains votes to enact a resolution is, of course, an entirely separate matter. I just did not want to propose something without some counsel regarding this idea.
Please read the thread over if you have time. It explains more of the limits of what could happen, and I even believe much of this can happen outside of the UN anyway.
Obviously, much of what needs to happen has to fit into a short Resolution character count. That will be another hurdle to leap, if this is given the nod.
Otherwise? We just do this apart from the UN, obviating its limitations, and once again the light-blue helmets get to be put on the shelves.
Feel free to ask questions. Thank you.
The original poster and I have being steered towards a different tact entirely.
What is the limitations upon the use of the term "United Nations" in regard to military operations conducted by member nations?
What might be the limitations of member nations for officially wearing uniforms or marking vehicles "UN" and flying the UN flag?
Just as the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols are vital emblems and names, so would the UN emblem, flag and name.
For instance, using the UN IRCO, we can roleplay UN humanitarian missions, saying we are Red Cross workers acting as per the UN IRCO. There is a forum for roleplaying with the UN IRCO (though it's not very active), and you can even get a UN IRCO symbol for your Forum account if you ask nicely. Similarly for TPP, etc.
Likewise, just about anyone can create a UNA Chapter. All you need to do is say you are opening a UNA Chapter, and voila! Begin a thread in a roleplaying forum.
However, because of the "3rd rail of moderation" -- "No UN army!" -- people have been avoiding using the term "UN peacekeepers."
A poorly-worded draft in 2004 was shot off the radar because it implied raising a UN army, and I know other proposals come along all the time up to the present day. Again, I am not proposing anything be donated to the "UN."
What is being contemplated is somehow to allow UN member nations to band together, operate and roleplay under all appropriate UN humanitarian, national security, and disarmament proposals, and allow responses to be done through a "UN-blessed process."
Unless the mods would see this as permissible, they could not call themselves "UN peacekeepers" or on a "UN peacekeeping mission."
Obviously, if only 2-3 players out of the entire UN were roleplaying in a thread, they could not claim that they were truly acting "on behalf of the UN."
It is also impermissible to make a UN resolution targetting a nation, so you cannot declare a sanction against "Bobville," pass an "I hate Bobville" resolution (even if everyone would vote for it) and then go bomb him and claim you did it as "the UN."
No, these things are legal or desireable.
However, we might let people claim they are "on a military or peacekeeping missions acting in accord to UN Resolution #(n): "UN Member Security Provision."
It would, of course, get shortened into parlance as "UN peacekeeping mission," but the technical distinction is semantically important.
They are UN members, on a peacekeeping mission, operating under guidelines established for such passed by UN resolutions.
That does not mean the UN has, as a body of the whole or in part, officially blessed, reviewed, approved, or even acknowledged their nation's actions.
But such a provision would affirm member nations' rights to organize, and by invitation-of-a-participant-only, intercede on each other's behalf for cases of defense in time of international war, work for establishment of peace in time of internal revolt or civil war, or provide response to humanitarian crises or natural catastrophes, operating at all times within the rules of the UN national security, disarmament, and humanitarian rights.
If permissible by the mods, they could fly the UN flag to identify them as operating within the guidelines of engagement set forth by the UN, so long as they were UN members in good standing and operated according to all UN provisions related to the conduct of war.
However, they would be limited to never say they represented the UN, or were the UN's "army." They would simply be operating under UN-blessed guidelines for military conduct, whether defensive action (say, UN member nations rallying to stop a non-UN member from invading a member state), peacekeeping or humanitarian operations.
The forces remain those of their respective nations. They are not transferred to the UN as a legal entity.
Many people these days mock the UN in the forums as toothless and disinteresting. But as far as I can see, this seems to be legal, and possibly quite effective. I am hoping it kicks up some dust. As far as I can see, what I propose is legal.
Whether it ever passes quorum, or gains votes to enact a resolution is, of course, an entirely separate matter. I just did not want to propose something without some counsel regarding this idea.
Please read the thread over if you have time. It explains more of the limits of what could happen, and I even believe much of this can happen outside of the UN anyway.
Obviously, much of what needs to happen has to fit into a short Resolution character count. That will be another hurdle to leap, if this is given the nod.
Otherwise? We just do this apart from the UN, obviating its limitations, and once again the light-blue helmets get to be put on the shelves.
Feel free to ask questions. Thank you.