Difference between revisions of "Talk:UN Mandate"

Latest revision as of 20:43, 29 January 2007

Nominated for deletion.

Utterly irrelevant to the NSUN; all information anyway contained within one link on the Jolt forums; purely the opinions of one player; confusing, misleading, and wrong with regard to the NSUN. This is the NSwiki; articles about the RL UN serve no purpose here. Gruen2alk 18:23, 3 December 2005 (GMT)

Delete and don't come back, for reasons stated above. RL =/= NS. → Ceo\squawk 19:07, December 3, 2005 (GMT)

• Get this crap out of here. It has nothing to do with the NSUN and is utterly irrelevent. Hack 02:39, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Keep, but rework into something that is actually useful. Could be interesting in conjunction with the World government entry. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 12:19, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

• This used to be a sticky, actually. Keep unless the original thread is located. --Goobergunch|? 03:36, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Original thread? This is linked from the article's first line. Not sure if there's something else.

In any case, I'm going to have to disagree. Whilst it may have been Stephistan's place to once dictate mandate in this manner, it certainly is not now, and the article as such is dangerous and misleading. It starts with an entirely fallacious, unproven supposition: 'it is certainly not rocket science to assume that the founder of the game Max Barry did intend for it to be in line with the real world'. Yet how many times are we told issue choices are exaggerated? How obvious is it the NSUN operates in a completely different manner to the RL UN?

'The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 191 countries*.' Nope. The UN was established on November 12/13 (disputable) 2002, by 1 or 3 (again, disputable) nations. Today, only about a quarter of every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 30,826 nations. The UN is committed to 'improving the world one step at a time'. At no time has a commitment to 'collective security' ever been formally established. Nor, for that matter, has preserving peace been formally enshrined, except to the extent that adding war is banned. But a proposal calling for military action on states who violated $human_right would be legal. The very first resolution passed was hardly 'committed to preserving peace'.

'When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.' Charter has no effect on the NSUN; people who mention the charter in the UN forum are mocked for doing so; references to the charter in proposals are illegal.

'The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process.' Cf. 'The UN is the world's governing body', UN main page. Furthermore, resolution of international conflicts is not essential to the NSUN: it's just something that might crop out of repealable resolutions.

'Through UN efforts, governments have concluded many multilateral agreements that make the world a safer, healthier place with greater opportunity and justice for all of us. This comprehensive body of international law, including human rights law, is one of the UN's great achievements.' NPOV.

'International Security'. No evidence to support the suppositions of this section. Further, the UN currently allows possession of nuclear and chemical weaponry. Also highly NPOV.

'Human Rights'. UDHR, IBR, etc. do not exist in NS. Closest thing would be the UBR, which can be repealed.

'International Law'. ICL & UNCITL do not exist in NS. The UNEP doesn't exist; desertification has never been addressed. No recreational drug resolution has ever passed. The Law of the Sea was declared illegal. The Security Council doesn't exist in NS. The terrorist acts mentioned never occurred in NS, and the NSUN has never acknowledged them, because it can't.

'Ending Impunity'. ICJ failed.

'Other Action for Justice and Equal Rights'. RL, RL, and oh yeah, RL.

'Human Welfare'. EcoSoc doesn't exist.

'So, in conclusion we can see that the U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it. We see this happen every day in the real world when countries are unable to solve their own domestic problems and it becomes a crisis. As well we see the U.N. as a body does have a wide range of responsibilities that one would think outside the mandate of the U.N.

For the U.N. inside the game to be a fun and realistic experience we must try to keep it real. Stay as close to the real world as we can, because otherwise you might as well be playing Dungeons & Dragons.' Bollocks to that, I'm afraid. This is a game. It is not for this article to dictate to people how to play it. This whole thing cropped in the Sapient Rights debate. Furthermore, 'the UN does not affect domestic policy unless a people are in need of it'? There's a few resolution authors I'd very much like to tell that to. But I can't, as it's not true.

If the consensus is keep, I will completely rewrite this. It does not belong on NSwiki, as it has no relevance to NationStates. Yours festively, Gruen2alk 20:34, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Since the original thread is located, I withdraw my vote. I'm for keeping archives of historically significant content, but there's no need for duplication of material between NSwiki and the NationStates forum. --Goobergunch|? 20:14, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

Consensus

The vote is 4-1. Since the opponent is a sysop, who can still view the deleted edit, I've deleted it. I will sort out links. Gruen2alk 20:58, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Agree with choice to delete. I'll clean up the links. - Fris 00:43, 30 January 2007 (GMT)