[DRAFT] Resolution For Decolonization

[Valan Prala]

For 1, the two ands sound weird, maybe make it one list like "the political oppression, economic exploitation , and cultural domination"
For 3, under that definition settlers from the colonizing country are "colonized peoples"

For your 1st point, I initially didn't see the problem but on closer reading yes i can see how it sounds a bit weird. I'll try and think of some better ways to word that to solve that issue. I don't think I'll use your suggested wording, but I appreciate the thoughts and contribution, it's very helpful!
For your 2nd point, yes that issue occurred to me when writing it, I'd love to hear some thoughts on a way to word it that would exclude settlers. Perhaps a simple addition of ",excluding settlers from the colonizer"? Not sure, I feel it could still be better than that.

[Valan Prala]

Unfortunately, this resolutions Is lacking of definitions, and I think that this could force nations to let every separatist region to become an indipendente state, taht is enormous violation of national sovereignty. So, I'm Sorry but I'm Against.

Respectfully, I think it would be better to provide constructive feedback on how to resolve that issue instead of saying you're against it. I've only had the draft up a few days and I plan on following the common advice of keeping it up for at least a month, longer if it still needs the work by then. It's not being published tomorrow, theres plenty of time to fix issues.
When first drafting this I realized that it could have the issue of effecting separatist regions, not just colonized ones, which is why the definitions of colonialism and colonized territory are possibly the most important parts of this legislation to get right. The focus should be purely on colonized territories, otherwise the legislation is definitely too broad in its scope. So if you think there's a part of this proposed resolution that would force nations nations to let any separatist region go, please explain where the issue is. Proposed solutions to the possible problem are also welcomed

[Cravoria]

I find it hypocritical, telling nations to decolonize whilst having colonies yourself.

[Rosettan Overwatch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.3 may be illegal due to GA rule 3a, Beyond GA Capabilities. Rules here.

Anyways, against. We are spacefaring. Why in hell should our expansion mean we can't have settled worlds in the name of space and resources?

[Potato Gun]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.3 may be illegal due to GA rule 3a, Beyond GA Capabilities. Rules here.

Anyways, against. We are spacefaring. Why in hell should our expansion mean we can't have settled worlds in the name of space and resources?

They actually went over a similar situation with my colonies, they say that colonies of formerly uninhabited land are perfectly fine. Perhaps some clarification on that could be useful for the proposal though.

[Llan]

This seems likes a good effort, unfortunately there are multiple issues with this. So I am against.

[Valan Prala]

I find it hypocritical, telling nations to decolonize whilst having colonies yourself.

I obviously oppose colonialism, and people accidentally get policies they don't want in this game all the time, it is a political satire game after all. My nation's lore explanation is that our colony policy refers to a space colony on an uninhabited planet. So, no, I really don't think anything about this is hypocritical

[Valan Prala]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.3 may be illegal due to GA rule 3a, Beyond GA Capabilities. Rules here.

Anyways, against. We are spacefaring. Why in hell should our expansion mean we can't have settled worlds in the name of space and resources?

I repeatedly clarify that this applies to member states within the text of the resolution, many times. I did this specifically because I read the rules, and it seemed pretty important to make sure I didn't violate that particular rule, since it seemed to be the easiest one for me to accidentally break if I wasn't careful. If there's a portion of this resolution where you think I may have missed specifying that this applies to member states, or otherwise tried to legislate on non-member states, please point to the part(s) where the problem lies so I can try and fix that.

[Uueidhhd]

“Foreign”needs to be further defined a nation can claim a colony as a direct part of the nation this making it not foreign.

[General TN]

"Stop ruining fun. Your attempts to prevent us from seizing and building grand things upon land is disgraceful. We are appalled. If the people want their land then they should have done better. Simple. Why just yesterday I admired my 1 million dollar giant block of cheese statue that I put on some recently acquired land. Much better than whatever was before it."

[Fortis Virtute]

Defines "colonized peoples" as any permanent residents of a colonized territory

I know it has been mentioned, but I do think we could tweak this definition because as mentioned, as it stands, this could include permanently stationed military or settlers from the colonial power.

I wonder if "colonized peoples" could be defined like, indigenous peoples or native inhabitants whose land, resources, and culture have been subjected to exploitation and subjugation by another nation against their will. Something like that maybe, or bits and pieces. Could have some issues with the whole against their will thing, but just my thoughts on some ways that definition could be cleared up.

[Storn]

To the Honorable Delegates of the General Assembly,

The Empire of Storn acknowledges the intent behind this resolution to address the historical injustices of colonialism. However, we find the measure to be fundamentally flawed in its application to soverign nations, particularly those of the imperial tradition. We must express our strong opposition to the measure along but not limited to the below points:

The Ambiguity of "Foreign Power"
The resolution defines "colonialism" as domination by a "foreign power", yet does not define what constitutes a "foreign power" in the modern geopolitical landscape.

Does this measure apply to territories acquired through legitimate treaties? How are legitimate treaties to be defined?Does it distinguish between an occupying force and a governing body with deep cultural integration?

Arbitrary Timelines and Sanctions
The resolution imposes a five-year deadline for decolonization and threatens sanctions for non-compliance. Decolonization is a complex process that requires economic integration, infrastructure development, and the establishment of functional governance. A rigid five-year window is arbtrary and ignores the logistical realities of administering diverse territories. Storn has demonstrated its capacity for governance and economic development, and we reject the notion that international pressure is required to manage our own dominions or that COLON can possibly function at a level of efficiency that would lead this to anything bit abject ruin.

Therefore, His August Majesty Emperor Justinian Beric II, and indeed the Empire of Storn cannot in good conscience support this resolution It is a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to account for the diversity of governance models and the complexities of sovereignty. We urge you to refrain from submitting this measure in its current form.

[Lipizia]

Unfortunately, this resolutions Is lacking of definitions, and I think that this could force nations to let every separatist region to become an indipendente state, taht is enormous violation of national sovereignty. So, I'm Sorry but I'm Against.

Respectfully, I think it would be better to provide constructive feedback on how to resolve that issue instead of saying you're against it.

It's possibile to make the both things.
Anyway, I have not quite time now. I'll let you know saturday.

[Valan Prala]

“Foreign”needs to be further defined a nation can claim a colony as a direct part of the nation this making it not foreign.

Good point, will add this to my notes for the next draft!

[Valan Prala]

Defines "colonized peoples" as any permanent residents of a colonized territory

I know it has been mentioned, but I do think we could tweak this definition because as mentioned, as it stands, this could include permanently stationed military or settlers from the colonial power.

I wonder if "colonized peoples" could be defined like, indigenous peoples or native inhabitants whose land, resources, and culture have been subjected to exploitation and subjugation by another nation against their will. Something like that maybe, or bits and pieces. Could have some issues with the whole against their will thing, but just my thoughts on some ways that definition could be cleared up.

I appreciate the very detailed response and suggestion, this is very helpful! I had considered incorporating indegeneity into the resolution (I believe when writing both drafts so far), but hadn't for a few reasons. Will consider that (and definitely the rest of your thoughts on this too) when I work on draft 3! Side note, don't know when that will be, I've been pretty busy and am still quite busy tomorrow, but hopefully some time later this week I'll have time and be in the headspace for it!

[Valan Prala]

To the Honorable Delegates of the General Assembly,

The Empire of Storn acknowledges the intent behind this resolution to address the historical injustices of colonialism. However, we find the measure to be fundamentally flawed in its application to soverign nations, particularly those of the imperial tradition. We must express our strong opposition to the measure along but not limited to the below points:

The Ambiguity of "Foreign Power"
The resolution defines "colonialism" as domination by a "foreign power", yet does not define what constitutes a "foreign power" in the modern geopolitical landscape.

Does this measure apply to territories acquired through legitimate treaties? How are legitimate treaties to be defined?Does it distinguish between an occupying force and a governing body with deep cultural integration?

Arbitrary Timelines and Sanctions
The resolution imposes a five-year deadline for decolonization and threatens sanctions for non-compliance. Decolonization is a complex process that requires economic integration, infrastructure development, and the establishment of functional governance. A rigid five-year window is arbtrary and ignores the logistical realities of administering diverse territories. Storn has demonstrated its capacity for governance and economic development, and we reject the notion that international pressure is required to manage our own dominions or that COLON can possibly function at a level of efficiency that would lead this to anything bit abject ruin.

Therefore, His August Majesty Emperor Justinian Beric II, and indeed the Empire of Storn cannot in good conscience support this resolution It is a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to account for the diversity of governance models and the complexities of sovereignty. We urge you to refrain from submitting this measure in its current form.

I will take some of these thoughts into consideration, however I do have to disagree on the "arbitrary timeline" section, I think you didn't quite read that portion clearly, since it requires that member states at least begin the process of decolonization, not fully decolonize. I recognize that the completion of decolonization could take longer than that, especially in complicated situations, and especially if a member state is trying to be careful to avoid causing negative consequences for their colong/former colony post-independence. That portion could use a lot of work, sure, but if anything that article needs to be a bit stricter to make sure member states don't avoid sanctions by "starting" to decolonize, but keeping the process in limbo. Also, I must once again say that this is a while off from being submitted for voting. I'm waiting til it's been up for at least a month, and it could easily end up longer than that. I've also had 2 members of the secretariat either promise to take a look at this when they can or say they'll attempt to if they have time, so I'm also going to be waiting on at least 1 taking a look before I submit the proposal.

[Excidium Planetis]

Defines "colonialism" as the political, economic, and cultural domination and exploitation of a territory and its people by a foreign power

Adelia Meritt, Ambassador for Excidium Planetis, indicates the primary definition in the draft. "Excuse m-me, Ambassador." She begins. "First, let me say that, obviously, Excidium Planetis no longer stands in favor of colonialism and s-s-s-supports measures to liberate-"

"Oh, get to the point, Meritt!" Cornelia Schultz, former ambassador, replies. "You don't have to repent for the atrocities committed by the Home Fleet. Screw those guys."

"R-right. Anyways," Adelia continues. "The first definition needs major rework. You see, uh, b-by define-ening colonialism as exploitation by a foreign power, you allow member nations to exclude almost all actual colonialism, which occurs in subjugated territory and is thus 'domestic', rather than f-f-foreign. A member nation which has within its sovereign borders a people group that they have oppressed for centuries can be disregarded by the member nation as not colonialism, because it's not domination and exploitation by a 'foreign' power. Consider revising."