United Nations Security Act
History of the Resolution
This resolution, the second resolution sponsored by the Texan Hotrodders, was significant in that it resulted in a significant debate amongst UN members and the UN Secretariat, concerning the ability of a resolution to limit general classifications of future UN proposals. This resolution basically was considered to be similar to Flibbleites’ Nuclear Armaments resolution (#109), which made it legal for nations to own nuclear weapons in the interest of international security. However, instead of targeting a specific type of weapon or subject matter, this resolution gave UN members the right to construct and use any weapons that they deemed necessary for defense.
The resolution was seen as a significant political victory for nations that have been advocating that the United Nations take a less intrusive relationship with domestic security, and was sponsored by the newly formed National Sovereignty Organization.
In this particular case, it was argued by some nations, notably Goobergunchia, that this resolution would effectively prohibit many future Global Disarmament proposals due to the final clause which states that “all member states have the right to construct and ultilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack”. However, it was ruled by the UN Secretariat that all resolutions effectively limit future proposals due to the standing UN rule that resolutions cannot duplicate or contradict existing UN resolutions.
After the passage of this resolution, Reformentia’s UN Biological Weapons Ban resolution was due up. However, since the proposal was only in queue to be a resolution and not on the UN floor, the UN Secretariat ruled that the draft that was next to reach the UN floor now contradicted the United Nations Security Act. The UN Biological Weapons Ban proposal was deleted, despite having achieved quorum, starting a new round of debates amongst many active UN members and the UN Secretariat in several different the treads. It was ultimately decided that all future disarmament resolutions needed to make note that the subject matter of the global disarmament resolution was unnecessary to national defense.
Text of the Resolution
|Category:||International Security||Strength:||Mild||Proposed By:||Texan Hotrodders|
The NationStates United Nations,
NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.
NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.
CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.
FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.
ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.
DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.
- Votes For: 9,667
- Votes Against: 6,886
- Implemented: Mon Jul 8 2005
This resolution is considered one of the most significant ones adopted by the United Nations, because due to this resolution all future Global Disarmament category proposals must include a clause stating that whatever weapon or device is being regulated by the UN is unnecessary to nations' defense.
Since this resolution followed the Nuclear Armaments resolution, the question "can a resolution limit the UN's ability to enact types of legislation via non-specific language" was already addressed by the moderators. In the case of the Nuclear Arraments resolution, it was decided that all UN resolutions restrict the ability of future resolutions to enact similar or opposite subject matters, and thus it is legal for resolutions to essentially protect UN members from future UN resolutions.
However, unlike the Nuclear Arraments resolution, which specifically gave nations the right to develop, own, or use nuclear arraments, this resolution took a much wider approach, and granted nations the right to use any weapons they felt was necessary for self defense. Because of the difference in scope of the two resolutions, moderators and players alike, began a series of new discussions questioning the legality of this resolution.
The moderators ruled that this resolution is legal and that it now requires that all future Global Disarmament proposals include language indicating that whatever weapons they seek to restrict must be described as being unnecessary to national defense. This ruling was immediately tested by the UN Biological Weapons Ban.
Case Study: UN Biological Weapons Ban
Immediately after the adoption of the United Nations Security Act, its impact on future resolutions was put to test. The UN Biological Weapons Ban proposal had already recieved enough UN Delegate endorsements before the voting on the United Nations Security Act was finished, but the moderators quickly ruled on legality of this resolution and what to do with the UN Biological Weapons Ban proposal. As a result of this ruling, the moderators ended up deleted the UN Biological Weapons Ban proposal even though had been submitted to the proposal queue before this resolution made it to the UN floor.
- United Nations Security Act UN Floor Debate
- UN Biological Weapons Ban
- Nuclear Armaments
- Regarding my Queued UN Proposal Discussion with Moderators
- Regarding the UN Security Act Discussion with Moderators
- An Alternative view of Resolution 110’s effect on new Legislation Discussion with Moderators
- UN Timeline
- United Nations