Skin created by Ray. Find more amazing skins at the Inkdrop Styles.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Create your own social network with a free forum.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Sovereigntist Saloon. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 PASSED: Repeal “Neutrality of Nations”
 
I guess this all boils down to whose side you're on: Zapp Brannigan or the Filthy Neutrals?
user posted image [ 6 ]  [75.00%]
user posted image [ 0 ]  [0.00%]
Uhh...I don't get it. [ 2 ]  [25.00%]
Total Votes: 8
Guests cannot vote 
Sionis Prioratus
Posted on Apr 2 2011, 11:34 AM


Shapeshifting Alien Lizard


Group: Observers
Posts: 14
Member No.: 28
Joined: 27-March 11



QUOTE
The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

ACKNOWLEDGING that indeed “it is a right of any Nation that is uninvolved in a war to make a formal claim of Neutrality”;

FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that there were good intentions behind “Neutrality of Nations” and that the vast majority of the Ambassadors and Delegates who voted for “Neutrality of Nations” did so thinking they were actually advancing the cause of world peace; hence:

DISMAYED that despite its name, GA #14 “Neutrality of Nations” does nothing to promote world peace, but does the exact opposite;

PERPLEXED that any nation may switch between “Neutral” and “Belligerent” at any time according to the terms of the Resolution, as their mood strikes them, without any penalties and without fear of acting in violation of international war conventions;

SHOCKED that section 3.a) states that any nation can have its claim of neutrality voided on the sole basis of indirect trade (which it may ultimately have no control over) of ill-defined “supplies”, such as “goods” and “personnel”, which can encompass basic humanitarian needs such as food, potable water, medical supplies and medical personnel;

OUTRAGED that GA #14 says, in relevant part:

“2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.”


SADLY NOTING that the conditions for “improv[ing] world peace” are not defined anywhere;

REALIZING the appalling potential for extreme abuse of this single clause; it gives “Belligerent Nations” unlimited power to invade or occupy any self-proclaimed neutral nation, merely by “convincing” the World Assembly that such a shameful act will “improve world peace”.

CONVINCED that such a state of uncertainty does create an international environment where war is even more probable, instead of creating peace;

THEREFORE, in the best interests of peace, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #14.


Edit at will.

Edit: updating to the thread's latest version.
Edit2: Updated once more, with the text as submitted.
Top
Mousebumples
Posted on Apr 2 2011, 03:46 PM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 6
Joined: 28-February 11



Generally in favor - no problems are jumping out at me at the moment. I'll take a closer look over the next few days and see if anything else comes to mind ...
Top
Sionis Prioratus
Posted on Apr 3 2011, 02:24 PM


Shapeshifting Alien Lizard


Group: Observers
Posts: 14
Member No.: 28
Joined: 27-March 11



Thanks Mousey! wink.gif

It is submitted!

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_p...atus_1301804835

As far as I'm concerned, this is a trial run. If it goes to the floor on this attempt, it goes.

I surely am willing to withdraw it if any of you find glaring faults or additions that would enhance its logic and/or approvability.

Even Charlotte herself approved it already!

I won't be doing a TG campaign, I TG'd Nullarni (informing him), and asked for the approval of my Delegate, which he kindly gave smile.gif
Top
Mousebumples
Posted on Apr 3 2011, 02:58 PM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 6
Joined: 28-February 11



QUOTE (Sionis Prioratus @ Apr 3 2011, 03:24 PM)
It is submitted!

As far as I'm concerned, this is a trial run. If it goes to the floor on this attempt, it goes.

I surely am willing to withdraw it if any of you find glaring faults or additions that would enhance its logic and/or approvability.

user posted image


Honestly, I'm not that picky on wording for repeals - at least for first tries. If it's repealing something I want gone, I'm generally in favor.

Of course, if I need to be persuaded to repeal a resolution, the text can make all the difference. However, that is not the case with this resolution.
Top
Sionis Prioratus
Posted on Apr 7 2011, 10:27 PM


Shapeshifting Alien Lizard


Group: Observers
Posts: 14
Member No.: 28
Joined: 27-March 11



Fellow conspiracists: Do you happen to have friends, or be citizens of Wysteria so as to swing their vote FOR?

http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Wysteria...?showtopic=7371
Top
kenny
Posted on Apr 8 2011, 10:43 AM


Penis Mutilator
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 42
Member No.: 2
Joined: 28-February 11



Quod, but he's not very active there anymore. Wysteria's voting behavior is rather bizarre at any rate, so I'm not sure how much success you'd have convincing them up is up when up is clearly down.
Top
Mousebumples
Posted on Apr 8 2011, 10:16 PM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 6
Joined: 28-February 11



QUOTE (Sionis Prioratus @ Apr 7 2011, 11:27 PM)
Fellow conspiracists: Do you happen to have friends, or be citizens of Wysteria so as to swing their vote FOR?

http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Wysteria...?showtopic=7371

Also, given the margin of the current vote, do we currently really need to be lobbying regions, such as Wysteria? I'd rather save our attempts to nag and convince them to change sides for when the vote is much closer ...

(But, no, I don't have any direct ties to Wysteria, except through Texas. But I don't have any personal contacts, all the same.)
Top
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
zIFBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2184 seconds | Archive