Blocker resolution
A blocker resolution is a type of United Nations resolution that intentionally was designed to prevent the submission of proposals dealing with similar topics. Though blocker resolutions can be specific or vague, they are usually carefully designed to cover a fair wide range of topics. Typically blocker resolutions are drafted by international coalitions of groups interested in protecting national sovereignty. The debate surrounding blocker resolutions often reveals the exact intent (to block future international legislation) of the resolution, but most blocker resolutions have been successful in making it illegal for UN member states to submit proposals dealing with same topics.
Some blocker resolutions do much more than simply prohibit future resolutions from dealing with a similar topic, but attempt to seriously address either an international problem or make a statement on a right. Despite the fact that these blockers are still promoting an idea, they still have a profound impact on restricting large numbers of future proposals, and thus are still considered blockers by some.
History
National sovereignty has a long and somewhat jaded history in the UN, but whilst some earlier resolutions were crafted to grant nations certain rights, they were not designed to directly prevent future UN legislation, and were in no real sense "blockers". The best example of such a resolution would be Rights and Duties of UN States. National rights proposals only came about much later. Having said that, the oldest extant UN resolution remains probably the most popular - UN Taxation Ban, which prevented the UN from directly taxing member nations' citizens.
In a sense, the first such resolution was Right to Refuse Extradition, during the drafting and debate of which there was some discussion of how valid proposals affirming existing rights of nations were, but far more significant was National Systems of Tax, by Powerhungry Chipmunks. Its specific intention was to prevent the UN from legislating on tax policies. For assorted reasons, this was eventually repealed by its author, but the discussion surrounding it generated the precedent to rule future such proposals legal, and furthermore the proposal itself inspired Flibbleites and Texan Hotrodders to write their twin weapons ban blockers, Nuclear Armaments and United Nations Security Act.
The first resolution to be referred to as a "blocker" was the Abortion Legality Convention, designed to prevent Clinical Abortion Rights passing. Since then, its author, Gruenberg, has passed three further blockers: UN Educational Aid Act, to protect national education systems, Individual Working Freedoms, to prevent replacement of The 40 Hour Workweek, and the Fair Sentencing Act, which prevents any future resolution from dealing with the subject of capital punishment.
Etymology
The term "blocker" is most commonly used by those opposed to the proposal in question, and supportive of the ideas it is "blocking", and so blocker would normally be used in a pejorative sense. Those supporting blockers would more commonly refer to them as "national rights proposals" or "pro-sovereignty". This tends to vary on an individual basis, however.
The word blocker itself was not commonly used at the time of the first few proposals of this nature to pass. The term came into general circulation with the Abortion Legality Convention, and the specific circumstances of this have led some to suggest that the accepted use of "blocker" is in fact incorrect. ALC was written with the deliberate intention of blocking another proposal, Clinical Abortion Rights, from reaching quorum (this tactic itself had been tried before, with varying degrees of success). As such, it can be argued that a resolution such as Nuclear Armaments was not a blocker, in that it tried to block no particular proposal (rather a general type of proposal, specifically those mandating nuclear disarmament), whereas United Nations Security Act was, insofar as at least one of its aims was the blocking of the UN Biological Weapons Ban (which did eventually pass, after much discussion of legality, rendering the point somewhat moot).
