Difference between revisions of "United Nations Security Act"
Mikitivity (Talk | contribs) |
Mikitivity (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== History of the Resolution == | == 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. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 29: | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''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. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
*[[United Nations]] | *[[United Nations]] | ||
*[[UN Timeline]] | *[[UN Timeline]] | ||
| + | *[United Nations Security Act] UN Floor Debate | ||
| + | *Discussion with Moderators | ||
| + | *Discussion with Moderators | ||
| + | *[http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432331 An Alternative view of Resolution 110’s effect on new Legislation] Discussion with Moderators | ||
Revision as of 00:06, 1 August 2005
Contents
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 2004
Additional Materials
- United Nations
- UN Timeline
- [United Nations Security Act] UN Floor Debate
- Discussion with Moderators
- Discussion with Moderators
- An Alternative view of Resolution 110’s effect on new Legislation Discussion with Moderators
Discussion on Gameplay Impacts
TBA
