NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it possible to get an already passed resolution reviewed for legality? Where would one do so? The GHP suggests that one would only report proposals ther.

Suppose you could ask here, but it's rather like closing the proverbial doors after the proverbial horses have proverbially bolted. Proverbially.

Suppose you could ask here, but it's rather like closing the proverbial doors after the proverbial horses have proverbially bolted. Proverbially.
Stop saying proverbial!

Stop saying proverbial!
Persist in poking your peripatetic proboscis into provinces of preposterous protestation, and you'll potentially provoke propensities of prosecutorial prostration in our Most Glorious Protégé.

Wouldn't be prudent.

I believe the only way to do this is to have the resolution repealed for whatever reasons you think it should be changed, and then remake a new one that is the new one. I believe it says this in the FAQ on resolutions, but I'm not entirely positive as I'm neither a regular in the UN forum nor a UN member. I suggest you go and look in the UN Resolution FAQ.

EDIT: Sorry, that's for editing proposals, adding onto them, etc, and is right, as I just checked the resolution rules. As to reporting already-passed ones for legality, you can, as has been stated. Or you can just try and get them repealed.

As to reporting already-passed ones for legality, you can, as has been stated. Or you can just try and get them repealed.
Yeah, but don't try using the illegality as your argument, the mods don't like that.

Can't repeal a repeal.

Suppose you could ask here, but it's rather like closing the proverbial doors after the proverbial horses have proverbially bolted. Proverbially.

Obviously you're in the thread about the UN proposal that got deleted. Well, this repeal has the same issue. Repeal "legalize prostitution" has the same issue. It's written by the same nation.

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

It declares a right in a resolution that cannot be repealed and makes it a reason for not being able to legislate on the matter. This repeal limits the ability of the UN to legislate on prostitution EVER, as current law has it as a law that it is reserved to local governments and that law is there for all time.

As you can see it limits the UN in the same way as the deleted resolution.

It declares a right in a resolution that cannot be repealed and makes it a reason for not being able to legislate on the matter. This repeal limits the ability of the UN to legislate on prostitution EVER, as current law has it as a law that it is reserved to local governments and that law is there for all time.
It may "declare a right", but it isn't a right, and holds no force of law. Repeals can only repeal, they can't add new law, so that isn't new law by definition.

Anybody who wants to post new law that contradicts that statement is welcome to try. I won't be deleting anything based on that alone.

As you can see it limits the UN in the same way as the deleted resolution.
Not exactly, after the repeal passed UN members had the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow prostitution in their nations, a right which they lost when "The Sex Industry Worker Act" passed.

It may "declare a right", but it isn't a right, and holds no force of law. Repeals can only repeal, they can't add new law, so that isn't new law by definition.

Anybody who wants to post new law that contradicts that statement is welcome to try. I won't be deleting anything based on that alone.

Ok. It was given as a reason for deletion in the other thread and said to be illegal.

I noticed the difference between the way it is written and the way others are written in that they acknowledge that later legislation is not limited by the repeal.

So is the only reason it's not illegal because it's a repeal.

Of course it doesn't make that illegal. A resolution saying, "nations have the right to determine x issue without UN interference" is "mold[ing] the rest of the world to your vision" (which is a line used with facetiousness, anyway, and not one which logically should be leaned on for legal precedent), in that it molds the UN structure to your vision.

Except that, as I clearly laid out in the Proposal Rules, you cannot limit the UN in such a way.

Not exactly, after the repeal passed UN members had the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow prostitution in their nations, a right which they lost when "The Sex Industry Worker Act" passed.

That assumes that by simply having no legislation against it, it assumed to be a right of the nation. Like saying that slavery is a right of the nation that is denied by legislation.

Obviously you're in the thread about the UN proposal that got deleted. Well, this repeal has the same issue. Repeal "legalize prostitution" has the same issue. It's written by the same nation.The problem is that once the Resolution (or Repeal) has been passed, there's nothing we can do about it. Thus, debating its legality doesn't accomplish anything.

The problem is that once the Resolution (or Repeal) has been passed, there's nothing we can do about it. Thus, debating its legality doesn't accomplish anything.
Sorry, I asked that question of someone else and I was given the impression that you could. That's fair. However, it is unfortunate because the fact that those exist is used as reasoning why that wording should continue to be used.

That assumes that by simply having no legislation against it, it assumed to be a right of the nation. Like saying that slavery is a right of the nation that is denied by legislation.
Exactly, if the UN is silent on an issue then nations can do whatever the hell then want on that issue. Using your slavery example, until the UN banned slavery for it's members, they could have legal slavery and if the "Ban Slavery" resolution is ever repealed they will be able to declare slavery legal again.

Exactly, if the UN is silent on an issue then nations can do whatever the hell then want on that issue. Using your slavery example, until the UN banned slavery for it's members, they could have legal slavery and if the "Ban Slavery" resolution is ever repealed they will be able to declare slavery legal again.

Ability != right

However, this is a discussion best left out of moderation.

Persist in poking your peripatetic proboscis into provinces of preposterous protestation, and you'll potentially provoke propensities of prosecutorial prostration in our Most Glorious Protégé.

Wouldn't be prudent.

lmao...going into the greatest quotes thread if I can find it.

lmao...going into the greatest quotes thread if I can find it.

I thought it should have said, "Probably wouldn't be prudent," but don't tell Fris that. He already doesn't like me and you know how that mod bias works ;-)

Note: For the record, I choked on my Pepsi when I read that line.