Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Dear all nations of the South Pacific,
The Commonwealth of Endless Islands is about to write a UN proposal aimed at making clear the areas where the UN has the right to setup and enforce a legislation - and more importantly, the areas where the UN has NO RIGHT to enforce anything.
So I would like you to give me your opinion on this, that is:
<em class='bbc'>Which is the area of action of the UN ?</em>
(you can precise either the areas where it should act, or the areas where it should not, or both)
Here is my opinion, which should help starting the discussions:
The UN shall :
1) Setup laws that will help the international community be better the defined eg. the Laws of the Sea Conventions, the Borders Convention, etc.
2) Help to keep International Peace by trying to solve international conflicts through Resolutions and enforcing disarmement practices.
3) Provide aid to "needy" countries, regardless of their politic/economic system
4) Fight against a small array of crimes : war crimes, genocid, terrorism (will add more if i feel there shall be more)
5) Help the international community to live better together and preserve our planet, eg. environmental treaties, large-scale aid against lethal diseases, protection of animals/plants, etc.
<strong class='bbc'>All this has a common limitation: the UN shall deal AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ONLY. This is obvious for points 1, 2 and 3. For point 5 this means only things that will apply at the international level are to be setup and enforced (ie. "the countries shall reduce their polluting emissions" would work whereas "the countries shall do this, this, and this to reduce their polluting emissions" would not, as this would mess with local laws). Point 4 is an exception as genocid may happen in a single country, therefore, not be an international issue.</strong>
I hope this was clear enough, and I look forward to your feedback and comments.
Thanks in advance
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I agree with you on every point you made, coral, but could you give us a copy of the proposal?
Posts: 409
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Good idea, Coral. The UN should deal with international incidents. But, if a country is causing trouble or overstepping it's bounds, the UN <em class='bbc'>should</em> be able to say "Nope. That's far enough. Back off or we will get involved." And if they don't, then the UN should do something. But only then.
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:I agree with you on every point you made, coral, but could you give us a copy of the proposal?
The proposal has not even been written yet.
We (I and some other nations) are only gathering ideas to build up something that is reasonnable and that many should approve.
This is why I asked you your opinion now, otherwise I would have submitted you the proposal directly.
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 90
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
personally, we allvote on hte Un proposals. therefore, cant we just vote against all proposals that do what you are talking about???if everyone who felt that way did it they wont pass...right?otherwise, this wont pass...
===
"I learned that dreams don't work without action. I learned that no one could stop me but me. I learned that love is stronger than hate. And most important, I learned that God does exist. He and/or she is right inside you underneath the pain, the sorrow and the shame."
-tsu
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I understand your point, but I think it is worth trying. Indeed, I know many countries who have voted in favour of proposals while thinking it was not the UN's right to mess with it, but just because it "seemed so good" and blahblahblah, they voted FOR. Or just ABSTAINed, for the same reasons.I know this has every chances to be rejected because most of the people do not even care to what the UN has the right and not the right to do, and only follow their ideals without thinking the UN shall not enforce ideals around the world, but on contrary, permit that all ideals be developed equally.
Posts: 187
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I think the whole point of the UN is to guide the world on its jurney to be a better place, a global village. If we tell the un to butt out we lose a great method to guide the world on this jurney.
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:I think the whole point of the UN is to guide the world on its jurney to be a better place, a global village. If we tell the un to butt out we lose a great method to guide the world on this jurney.
Problem is: this journey might be different from one nation to another.
Your 'ideal' of a better world is probably not the same as mine, and not the same as someone else.
You have your own conception of what a 'better world' is. For instance, if you think 'better world' necessarily means 'democracy', i won't agree. Dictatorship, when controlled properly, is a far more efficient way of government than democracy, at least democracy as we know it currently.
But this was an example. And I believe there are a lot more: just look at the latest resolution "metric system". Is that what you consider a better world ? I don't think so, personally.
Now, this 'journey to better wordl' could be, in a way, 'helped' by the UN, at what i call the international/world-wide-common level - avoiding international crisis, environmental problems, genocid etc. : this INDEED regards EVERYONE, and is not subject to any ideals. There is EVIDENCE that if we do nothing for environment, in a few hundred years, we won't be able to live on our planet. And apart a few people, NOONE can support genocid, just because it's not human. etc.
That is why the UN has to be limited to some kind of decisions. The UN can help to have a better world, but at a certain point, it's not the UN who shall decide, but each country, with its people, its particularities, its beliefs.
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 90
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
alrgiht - do what you are saying is that the UN should not be able to tell nations what it must do. fair enough.however, it the UN decides that pollution needs to be controlled, each antion is alowed to control pollution a different way. however, maybe some nations will control it less than others and it will still eventually kill us all. right?
===
"I learned that dreams don't work without action. I learned that no one could stop me but me. I learned that love is stronger than hate. And most important, I learned that God does exist. He and/or she is right inside you underneath the pain, the sorrow and the shame."
-tsu
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:alrgiht - do what you are saying is that the UN should not be able to tell nations what it must do. fair enough.
however, it the UN decides that pollution needs to be controlled, each antion is alowed to control pollution a different way. however, maybe some nations will control it less than others and it will still eventually kill us all.
right?
not necessarily : with my proposal, the UN could still define a goal
eg. to re-use your example, "nations shall reduce their polluting emissions by 5%"
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Here is the first version of the text. If you feel it should be amended in a way or another, please let me know.
Quote:The State Parties of the United Nations,
CONSIDERING that the UN's initial point was to help making the World a 'better place',
RECOGNIZING that there are common concerns world-wide related to the achievement of this goal, but
CONSCIOUS that each country has its own peoples, its own particularities, its own beliefs, and therefore, its own definition of what a 'better place' is,
BELIEVING that this important fact shall be taken into account in past and future resolutions
RESOLVE THAT
* ARTICLE 1
The UN's areas of actions need to be delimited as defined in the following articles of this resolution.
* ARTICLE 2
The UN has the right to rule in the following areas:
a. set up international laws that will help the International Community be better defined, that is, which will define what behaviors to adopt in international areas (international seas, sky, space) ;
b. help to keep International Peace by setting up multinational peacekeeping forces, simplifying the relations between antagonist states, helping the signature of Peace Treaties ;
c. provide aid to countries that most need it, independently of their political and economic system ;
d. help the international community to live better together and preserve our environments for the future of life of any kind, as defined in Article 3
e. fight against 'crimes against humanity' as defined in Article 4
* ARTICLE 3
Article 2 point d shall be limited to what is called the 'International Level'. This means that the resolutions passed in this area should include only global considerations, whereas the application of the resolution, which would need in most country to pass specific laws, would not be allowed.
eg. a resolution enforcing "the reduction of polluting emissions" would be right, whereas a resolution enforcing "the reduction of polluting emissions by doing this, this, this and this" would be wrong.
* ARTICLE 4
Article 2 point e allows the UN to fight against 'crimes against humanity'. Only war crimes and genocids are considered such crimes.
* ARTICLE 5
All previous resolutions not complying with the areas as defined in the previous articles are abrogated.
All future resolutions which will not comply with the areas as defined in the previous articles will be considered as 'recommendations' and will only be enforced in countries who will have voted in favor of these resolutions.
Posts: 187
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
And then people will simply say, that is too much we will set our own goals, like they do now, and not really bother to achive anything. I.e. America with their own version of hte koyoto goals.
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:And then people will simply say, that is too much we will set our own goals, like they do now, and not really bother to achive anything. I.e. America with their own version of hte koyoto goals.
Indeed. But if you are another idea to stop the UN from taking absurd decisions such as enforcing 'hydrogen cars research' or 'replanting trees' and such, tell me, i am VERY interested.
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 90
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
it would simply mean drumming up support against the proposal...
===
"I learned that dreams don't work without action. I learned that no one could stop me but me. I learned that love is stronger than hate. And most important, I learned that God does exist. He and/or she is right inside you underneath the pain, the sorrow and the shame."
-tsu
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
i don't agree.don't you know how people behave ? the guys who account for the majority in that kind of proposals are voting 'for fun' or just don't realize what the resolution involves (= that it will not only be implemented in their own nation, but also in others' nations), and as long as it's dumb (= mix of stupid, very original, extremist, 'sounds good', 'for the best of mankind', etc.) then it's good. and on the other hand, the rest just don't bother to vote 'no' to something that is finally 'not so unrealistic' and prefer to abstain than to block the resolution.*end of overcriticism*
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
The Proposal has been submitted.If you know delegates, please ask the to support. It's name is "UN's Rights".LadyRebels has already been asked, so no need to ask her again.Thanks!
Posts: 187
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
How do you know that everybody votes for fun? I for one heavily support hydrogen car research, and if everybody did conduct hydrogen car reseach instead of campaining against it like they do in the real world, it would be a lot better for the enviroment. Dont forget that global warming has already started, i.e. dont listen to corporate bankroled scientist telling you otherwise, the UN has already concluded that there is sufficient evidence of it. So dont dismiss the UN just becouse it forces nations to take hard choices, which might not be better for them induvidually but is better for the world as a whole. After all that is the purpous of the UN. Im sure you have seen its lack of success in preventing conflicts, it is nowadays used more to legitimise conflict than to prevent it.
Posts: 953
Threads: 50
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
there are two options1) vote against the proposals you don't like.2) leave the UN. the un's power come s from its numbers.personally i vote the way i feel. i don't like pedophiles. i think children do need more protection from them. i do like hydrogen cars and think that this research is needed. and i voted against the metric system because i thougth it was s tupid proposal that would limit freedoms. besides as someone else suggested the people who need an international standard unit already use it.while i am not suggesting that this is the case, i would hope that only nations that feel strongly about issues would join the un. (what's the point otherwise?)i do agree that some proposals are rediculous and those deserve to be voted down. perhaps we could make a concerted effort to educate un nations?anyways i talk too much.
Posts: 7,559
Threads: 217
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Coral Islands, I agree whole-heartedly with your proposal. The UN has severely limited the sovereign autonomy of each of our nations with little recourse to the cultural factors which make each of us unique. Once your proposal is up for a vote, I say YEA!
I am the milkman of human kindness
And I will bring an extra pint -- B. Bragg
Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters. -- Grover Cleveland
When the laws are used to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government -- Andrew Jackson
"Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can." -- Vince Cable
Posts: 78
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:So dont dismiss the UN just becouse it forces nations to take hard choices, which might not be better for them induvidually but is better for the world as a whole. After all that is the purpous of the UN.
This is all the problem: you are convinced all UN proposals will make the World better, and I'm not. If we had wanted to be realistic and taken into account all the consequences of the 5 or 6 last voted resolutions, the UN nations, and the entire NS world should be in a big economic crisis, which, finally, is not at all good.
But anyway... Probably the resolution won't even come to vote because of a lack of delegates support. Maybe it will be re-submitted, maybe not.
Anbd whatever the case, many nation from whom the resolution got support said they would probably resign from the UN if it did not pass.
|
