Here is the most recent UN resolution up for voting. Voting ends February 24th. As usual, I'll vote in favour of the majority view expressed here. Feel free to respond with your thoughts in this thread.

---

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.

This one mystifies me. It is well written - seldom are they as well written as this. But "Sovereignty" is not well defined. Taken to an extreme, the protection of national sovereignty could mean that all UN resolutions, including those which protect fundamental human rights, are invalid.

As such, this uncertainty frightens me.

It certainly brings a whole new definition to UN membership. I remember reading through it during the approval stage and thinking that it was a well written and contstructed document with plenty of thought put into it. There were some interesting debates in the forum for discussing it's finer points and most were well made (I've no idea if it's still active).

I've yet to see in the posts in NS an explanation as to the benefit gained by passing this resolution.

A couple of posts raised the point that this resolution does nothing. The responses to those posts did not help me understand why is necessary to clarify the UN's role or how passing this resolution improves the UN.

I was hoping that this resolution would include a method to limit the UN's concerns to international issues but that doesn't seem to be the case.

It sounds good on paper, and it is obvious that someone put a lot of time and effort into it. It does state that all UN states must abide by UN law. Someone help me out here - seems ok.

By my estimation, what there crux of the matter they're trying to get at is somwhere in the ball-park...
The description seems to intonate toward the right to continue self-governance, and I'm guessing that's what this 'sovereignty' referred to is..?
One of the things I think could be more clearly defined are these "...immunities reconised by international law...". What happens if a UN resolution contradicits a Nations' 'sovereignity' or right to self governance. It's not like adherence to UN resolutions are to be chosen depending whether you like them or not. This has also been brought up elsewhere (I forget where now though...).

Articles 6 and 7 also puzzle me. Isn't War civil strife? So by it's own admission, the declaration of war is "fomenting civil strife" and in direct violation of this alleged awe-inspiring Article 5?

Article 8 - um - does this mean that you can ignore those in violation of Article 5-7 (if it was passed that is?). I mean, "...duty to refrain from recognising...". Am I just reading too far between the lines or what...? Hang on - it knid of redeems itself, but is War ever a consensual act?

"...the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law. ...". Does this mean that this so call 'sovereignty' is superceded by UN law/resolutions?

Can anyone explain or am I reading it right? :wacko:

Those were some of the same difficulties I had with it. It looks impressive. I just don't know what it really means...

Having reviewed the discussion of this declaration in the UN forum, I believe I understand the intent behind it. In short, the declaration solemnifies the NationStates game mechanics, and seeks to define 'sovereignty' in the context of those mechanics.

The mechanics of NS dictate that UN member states are automatically influenced by 'International Law' -- that is, the resolutions passed by the UN. You can't avoid them, except by withdrawing from the UN. As such, being a UN member does limit ones national sovereignty. Section I codifies this fact: sovereignty is all legal authority within your own territory, except where over-ridden by the UN.

The first two articles of Section II define war as consensual RP, again simply reflecting the NS reality. The other articles of Section II are prescriptive. Articles 7 and 8 enjoin UN members not to assist or take part in any aggressive acts outside of that definition. Article 8, in particular, is about illegitmate takeovers of a state, for instance by password theft.

Article 6 is a bit of a mystery, because it doesn't seem to be directly tied to a game mechanics issue. It's just a 'no meddling' rule.

Section III comes back to the question of International Law. Article 10, in particular, seems to have been inspired by an incident in which one nation exploited a loophole in a UN resolution to justify an act that was contrary to the resolution's intent.

The declaration seems to be well-intended. But, I have three problems with it. First, it goes too far in accepting the limits on sovereignty imposed by the game mechanics. I believe that a proper declaration of a principle of sovereignty should impose limits on the UN, as well as on member states. Second, I don't think that Article 6 belongs in this resolution. Finally, I reject the implication of article 10 that the intent of a law can carry any more weight than its text. This would undermine the entire legal system.

This declaration, or rather previous versions of it, has apparently been defeated twice already. So far, the voting is running in favour of this version. Drunken Hosers, however, votes no.

"In short, the declaration solemnifies the NationStates game mechanics, and seeks to define 'sovereignty' in the context of those mechanics."
That's all well and good and I got that far with it.
"...sovereignty is all legal authority within your own territory, except where over-ridden by the UN." By your own admission then, joining the UN supercedes a nations sovereignty and you end up having to forfiet all rights to self governance. Doens't that make the UN pointless then?

Password theft is illegal in NS. Therre are numerous posts (in this, and other forums) about conspirators attempting to gain posswords by illegal means. Only those dumb enough to do so will follow this through. If you read the rules, it states that this is illegal and that no other person has access, or should be given access to your password. Yes, game Admin/Mods can delete your nation, but not modify your Nation and certainly not by using your password.

"Section III comes back to the question of International Law. Article 10, in particular, seems to have been inspired by an incident in which one nation exploited a loophole in a UN resolution to justify an act that was contrary to the resolution's intent."
I'm sorry, then I guess the proposal should have been thought out better, or people should have read it thoroughly to avoid this in the first place.

I agree with your closing arguments though and will probably not vote in this rather than becoming part of the problem.

I agree with Bweezy, apart from the obvious NS game-mechanic overhaul - what is it trying to achieve aside from the systemic?

I wouldn't call it my admission. I was simply reporting what I had learned from the discussion of the resolution on the UN forum. Having said that, yes UN membership does require some surrender of sovereignty. This is the way the game works. Whether or not that makes the UN pointless depends on whether or not you think that national sovereignty should always be unfettered. If you do, you should not join the UN.

Some issues cross borders, and I believe that a supra-national body like the UN should have the authority to over-rule national sovereignty in some cases. That is why I joined the UN. However, I think those cases are relatively rare. For the most part, the UN should not infringe upon sovereign nations. Certainly not on local issues.

I agree. This is probably the strongest motivator for me to oppose this resolution. Badly or ambiguously worded resolutions should not be approved. Unfortunately, the UN seems to be prone to adopting ill-considered motions. Some difference of interpretation is inevitable.

I would urge you to vote no, if you disagree with the resolution. Abstaining does not improve anything.

I don't think this resolution is intended to lead to a change in the game mechanics. It is a declaration of principles. Declarations of principles don't directly do anything. They guide future actions.

A well constructed argument, in many respects, and I can see that you have clearly thought this through. The reference to your own admission was more a moot point in referring to the clarification of the point at hand. National sovereignty is one of great debate at the moment and yes, I will concede that if you wish to retain this then perhaps joining the UN is not the best decision. The ability to over-rule local government is one that would be extremely contraversial and require a great deal of decorum for those enforcing bodies as it could be interpreted as an act of mutiny in itslef. The Compliance Ministry is partly responsible for this and would therefore lead to the expansion of said ministry.

I don't disagree with the proposal. I think that it is a fine piece of work and derserves credit for that at least. It would benefit from being clearer in defining what is meant by sovereignty and also how the UN would measure the necessity to supercede this. I don't think for one moment that the UN is pointless, it was a devil's advocate argument designed soley for your explanation. The UN is a very important facet of NS allowing much of the RP aspect to occur. It would otherwise consist of similar off-site forums with no code of conduct or regional representitives, making progress even more difficult.

The fact that someone was bold enough to propose this is, in itself, due credit. If it is passed, which it looks like it will, there will be countless ammendments as well as proposals to make Rights and Duties illegal (repeal proposals don't exist in NS). In no way did I intend to portray that this would change the game mechanic as that would be a fools errand.

My point of abstention was attempting illustrating that if your not part of the solution your part of the problem and that if you are unsure about something it is often better not to get involved than end up in a situation that places you in an uncomfortable position. Apologies for any mis-understandings. ^_^

The Venerated Bweezy
I guess if we're at odds about it, the best thing to do is wait and see. If you decide not to vote for it Bweezy, that's fine with me. We'll deal with the implications (if any) as and when they arise.

Your apology is unnecessary, but appreciated. You did me no wrong, and I perceived no insult.

However, I don't agree that disengagement is a useful default position for UN member states. My default position is to vote againt. I will vote that way unless I am convinced of the value of the proposition. Pernicious or badly formed resolutions should be rejected. Abstention simply allows others to make the decision.

Having said that, there are some classes of motions on which I might abstain. Specifically, motions that are truely international, yet do not impinge upon Drunken Hosers.

I see your devotion to your citizens is sacrosanct and can hold no ill against you for that. I also see that you are a Nation of action - which I respect. I sense you will be a worthy addition to the Region.

I will vote in accordance with the majority in this poll. I am constitutionally bound to do so. My job as Delegate and PM is to represent the will of the member nations of this region. What I think about this resolution, when it comes down to it, is irrelevant. My only concern is to vote in accordance with the wishes of the region.

My bad. Totally forgot. Errmm... help yourself to the fridge - it's over by the stereo.

The resolution "Rights and Duties of UN States" was passed, 15083 votes to 3395, and implemented in all UN member nations.

I voted against, based on our 11-9 vote here.