NATION

PASSWORD

[AT VOTE] Repeal "Recognition of the General Assembly"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

[AT VOTE] Repeal "Recognition of the General Assembly"

Postby Rhaza » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:47 pm

Hello all,

I am here alongside two Perditian colleagues to propose what I think is a fairly simple legislative correction. Please provide feedback in this thread. Link to target.

Co-authors: Ostrovskiy, Saint Asperes.

The Security Council,

Recognizing that the intent behind “Recognition of the General Assembly” is to define the Security Council’s relationship to the General Assembly, an adjacent legislative body within the broader World Assembly,

Believing there to be a number of flaws with the target resolution, a Declaration that is broadly outdated and fails to fulfill its ideal function,

Questioning Resolution 359’s stance that the relatively brief mention of the General Assembly does not do the body justice on the following basis,

  • The Security Council has frequently recognized contributors to the General Assembly, such as Honeydewistania and Omigodtheykilledkenny, for deeds in that chamber worthy of commendation or condemnation,
  • General Assembly resolutions do not mention the Security Council in any known case, in contrast to the frequency with which the Security Council typically affords the General Assembly acknowledgement,
  • Security Council resolutions regularly and sufficiently recognize contributors to other institutions and communities, formally-organized or otherwise, from nominal ideologies that dictate interregional politics and conflicts to the various regional, national, and other sports associations which govern the grounds upon which historic athletic achievements have been celebrated, without requiring the explicit recognition of those bodies,

Further confused at Resolution 359’s assertion that the Security Council is obligated to do the General Assembly “justice” in light of the aforementioned imbalance in recognition, followed by the contention that the two chambers are “equal”, a curious display of the disparity in implied standards enforced upon this body by one over the other,

Positing that the declaratory clauses in Resolution 359 are varyingly flawed or without depth beyond their surface acknowledgements,

  • Finding items (i) and (ii) unpersuasive as a declarative resolution, given they merely restate matters of fact, rather than express the perspective of the Security Council,
  • Fundamentally disputing the idea advanced in (iii) that the General Assembly and Security Council “remain equal in their overall power and influence” as they carry out intrinsically different functions, the former regulating constituent nations and the matter overseeing matters of recognition and regional warfare,
  • Alarmed that Resolution 359 fails to define the “rights and duties” of member states to either chamber suggested by (iv), allowing for an expansive and overreaching interpretation, and further concerned that General Assembly Resolution 654 limits all member states to the law of the General Assembly, a broad endorsement the Security Council should be hesitant to enforce,
  • Challenging the stipulation in (v) a “disavowment” of one chamber should be taken as a disavowment of both, given this clause both fails to define what constitutes a disavowment and the supposed “consequences” to be imposed if a nation or region does disavow or otherwise neglect one of the chambers,

Broadly asserting that the fundamental purpose of a Declaration is to express the position of the Security Council on a given matter, and that following the repeal of Security Council Resolution 359, this body is encouraged to pass a resolution more aligned with that purpose as it relates to the present General Assembly,

Preferring a form of improved replacement to Resolution 359, though advising that absent one, the Security Council is capable of responsibly functioning without an acknowledgement of the General Assembly,

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution 359, “Recognition of the General Assembly”.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Fri Feb 07, 2025 10:12 am, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Rhaza » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:48 pm

Further I am requesting a legality ruling on:

"General Assembly resolutions mention the Security Council at an immeasurably small rate, substantially less than the frequency with which the Security Council affords the General Assembly any recognition,"

As I think it should be viable to mention since I don't say why this is the case, I merely acknowledge a fact, but it does allude to a rules-based issue.

User avatar
Haymarket Riot
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 416
Founded: Aug 29, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Haymarket Riot » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:50 pm

Support! Much about the GA's relationship with the Security Council has changed.

:alien:
The Butch Antifascists of Haymarket Riot
Proud Wife of Emiline
Mayor of Ridgefield||Diplomatic Officer of the Augustin Alliance||Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The North Pacific||General Assembly Secretariat as of 10/13/24
IC: President Jolene Josephine Jefferson of Haymarket Riot
Formerly: Lieutenant in the Black Hawks, Delegate of Pacifica, Prime Director of Anteria
An Author of: SC 228 | SC 523 | SC 524 | GA 742 | GA 748 | GA 762 | GA 765
"Love is wise, hatred is foolish" - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
General TN
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jan 13, 2024
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby General TN » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:51 pm

So what I'm getting here is this is a repeal and replace?
A capitalist hellhole run by an unearthly obese being referred to as TN that finds pleasure in devouring the less fortunate
Slavery? Child labor? No minimum wage? The rich abusing the poor for more money? Lifespans that will make your jaw drop in horror? Rampant crime? Why we've got it all!

Million Dollar News: Income of rich approaches 2 million while poor struggle | Several lives have been lost due to TN's terrible stench and other nations nickname it "The giant biological bomb"

User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Rhaza » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:52 pm

General TN wrote:So what I'm getting here is this is a repeal and replace?


Preferably. I do not plan to write a replacement, but I have discussed the prospect of what that may look like with some authors. The "Broadly" and "Preferring" clauses in combination should address this.

User avatar
Walkabout
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Dec 02, 2024
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Walkabout » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:53 pm

Well put!
WA Delegate of the Outback
Former WA Delegate & Guardian of the West Pacific
Founder & Governor of The Sasquatch Republic

Commended by SC#401
Author of SC#520, GA#767

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9021
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:54 pm

Rhaza wrote:Further I am requesting a legality ruling on:

"General Assembly resolutions mention the Security Council at an immeasurably small rate, substantially less than the frequency with which the Security Council affords the General Assembly any recognition,"

As I think it should be viable to mention since I don't say why this is the case, I merely acknowledge a fact, but it does allude to a rules-based issue.

While I think it’s a poor argument (in so far as blaming the IC GA for things it isn’t allowed to do by the OOC rules) I don’t think it’s a rules violation.

User avatar
General TN
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jan 13, 2024
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby General TN » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:55 pm

Rhaza wrote:
General TN wrote:So what I'm getting here is this is a repeal and replace?


Preferably. I do not plan to write a replacement, but I have discussed the prospect of what that may look like with some authors. The "Broadly" and "Preferring" clauses in combination should address this.

Understood.
My assumption going by what this repeal focuses on that the updated proposal would be about the GA in relation to the SC in its current state?
A capitalist hellhole run by an unearthly obese being referred to as TN that finds pleasure in devouring the less fortunate
Slavery? Child labor? No minimum wage? The rich abusing the poor for more money? Lifespans that will make your jaw drop in horror? Rampant crime? Why we've got it all!

Million Dollar News: Income of rich approaches 2 million while poor struggle | Several lives have been lost due to TN's terrible stench and other nations nickname it "The giant biological bomb"

User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Rhaza » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:56 pm

General TN wrote:
Rhaza wrote:
Preferably. I do not plan to write a replacement, but I have discussed the prospect of what that may look like with some authors. The "Broadly" and "Preferring" clauses in combination should address this.

Understood.
My assumption going by what this repeal focuses on that the updated proposal would be about the GA in relation to the SC in its current state?

Yes, I would hope any replacement be more expressive about the state of the GA, what the SC considers to be a fair use of it, something regarding the priority of the regional unit, etc - but that's for another thread, if it happens.

User avatar
General TN
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jan 13, 2024
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby General TN » Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:58 pm

Rhaza wrote:
General TN wrote:Understood.
My assumption going by what this repeal focuses on that the updated proposal would be about the GA in relation to the SC in its current state?

Yes, I would hope any replacement be more expressive about the state of the GA, what the SC considers to be a fair use of it, something regarding the priority of the regional unit, etc - but that's for another thread, if it happens.

Seeing that is so I will put myself in support of this proposal and plan to deliver some feedback / suggestions tomorrow on the proposal itself.
A capitalist hellhole run by an unearthly obese being referred to as TN that finds pleasure in devouring the less fortunate
Slavery? Child labor? No minimum wage? The rich abusing the poor for more money? Lifespans that will make your jaw drop in horror? Rampant crime? Why we've got it all!

Million Dollar News: Income of rich approaches 2 million while poor struggle | Several lives have been lost due to TN's terrible stench and other nations nickname it "The giant biological bomb"

User avatar
Ostropeake
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Sep 16, 2024
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ostropeake » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:07 pm

Super glad to be working on this with both Quebec and Saint Asperes - I think this is a really worthy cause and we're here too, not just Q :p

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1811
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fachumonn » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:13 pm

Note that you could also argue that "full consequences" in Clause V is really vague.

Support, as evidenced by my similar past attempts at this.
WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Democratic Socialism
"I agree with Vara" - Mage
"We're talking about Fachy the brokeass" - Cessarea
"IA is a myth propogated by the WA elite, NS mods, and Max Barry" - Ladratia
Love geography and good music, the two best things. American Sports are my drug, don't get me started.

User avatar
Antierra
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Jan 02, 2025
Corporate Police State

Postby Antierra » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:16 pm

Antierra supports this.
Proud member of GRACE, the Guild of Royal Allies for Cooperative Enterprise.

It's a new region and is recruiting now! If you are a monarchy or want to be one and value dignity, nobility and tradition, please consider joining!

We are Anti-Fascist, Anti-Communist, and Anti-Capitalist!

Our Ways are the Old Ways!* Click HERE to learn more!

*except for homophobia and racism, those old ways can b*gger off!

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3925
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:45 pm

full and unconditional support to repeal this declaration
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Rei Khan
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Dec 01, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rei Khan » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:51 pm

Full support from the AA!
Cape of Good Hope Diplomacy Officer
AA Defense Officer

User avatar
Saint Asperes
Envoy
 
Posts: 251
Founded: May 09, 2023
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saint Asperes » Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:57 pm

"Alarmed that Resolution 359 fails to define the “rights and duties” of member states to either chamber suggested by (iv), allowing for an expansive and overreaching interpretation, and further concerned that General Assembly Resolution 654 limits all nations to the law of the General Assembly"

-- ( This part is very eye-catching and mind-boggling at the same time to the average member states . I hope other voting member states feel the same way. Points may be cast upon this resolution, or even doubts, but no one can deny the effort that has been put into "reconstructing the SC on new foundations and bringing attention to its decaying qualities ."
Last edited by Saint Asperes on Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 597
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:39 pm

Support. I've never understood why the SC should "recognize" the GA.
OOC puppet of the player behind the nation of Yelda

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2611
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:48 am

Rhaza wrote:Further I am requesting a legality ruling on:

"General Assembly resolutions mention the Security Council at an immeasurably small rate, substantially less than the frequency with which the Security Council affords the General Assembly any recognition,"

As I think it should be viable to mention since I don't say why this is the case, I merely acknowledge a fact, but it does allude to a rules-based issue.


(OOC)

It's arguably technically not a fact (ie it's not "immeasurably small", it simply has never been done before, in math there is a difference between "zero" and "infinitesimally small") as you rightly point out due to rules on the GA end, so GA can't acknowledge existence of SC. GA can't even mention April, May or June as a date, for that matter.

I am personally ambivalent as to the resolution - it's really a question of whether the game directors want to allow GA to recognize SC or vice versa, I think it's not really something that is done well IC either way.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
(It).

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5338
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Sat Jan 25, 2025 1:00 am

Full tub thumping support.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. Former Guardian (under many Delegates) of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs and former Security Council Advisor.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..

User avatar
Crazy girl
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6622
Founded: Antiquity
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Crazy girl » Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:01 am

Rhaza wrote:Further I am requesting a legality ruling on:

"General Assembly resolutions mention the Security Council at an immeasurably small rate, substantially less than the frequency with which the Security Council affords the General Assembly any recognition,"

As I think it should be viable to mention since I don't say why this is the case, I merely acknowledge a fact, but it does allude to a rules-based issue.


From the SC mods hive mind, it's fine.

User avatar
Astrobolt
Diplomat
 
Posts: 647
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:29 am

Opposed, especially if a replacement is not ready yet.
TITO Tactical Officer
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe


For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, click here.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 597
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:51 am

Rhaza wrote:Questioning Resolution 359’s stance that the relatively brief mention of the General Assembly do not do the body justice on the following basis

Grammatical correction: should be "does not do".
OOC puppet of the player behind the nation of Yelda

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3925
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:00 am

Astrobolt wrote:Opposed, especially if a replacement is not ready yet.

In what way is a replacement needed or desired
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Rhaza » Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:01 am

Astrobolt wrote:Opposed, especially if a replacement is not ready yet.

I've always been of the mind that no law is better than bad law, in any case.

User avatar
Rhaza
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Oct 26, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Rhaza » Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:05 am

New version is up based on some off-site suggestions, as well as re-adding a clause Ostro wrote that I removed on accident when posting.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads