A member in the region of Gatesville (link) has proposed a UN resolution that puts limits on previous UN resolutions, to respect nations' sovereignty.

Text of the Resolution:
---
SUPPORTING the idea that each member of the United Nations is both a member of the community of nations and, as is sometimes forgotten, a free and sovereign state;

CONSIDERING that the United Nations has passed seventy resolutions since its creation, including over sixty resolutions that control spending within member nations;

CONSIDERING that the constant roll of resolutions has had a dramatic and unreversed negative effect on the sovereignty of United Nations members;

CONSIDERING that too many laws requiring spending can be a huge financial burden on the smaller members of the United Nations;

CONSIDERING that the primary role of sovereign states is to protect their citizens;

REALIZING that member nations should be committed to supporting all previous resolutions if it is economically feasible and will not damage the integrity of their nation, and even in cases where a resolution is unfunded, it should still be supported;

Be it hereby resolved that members of the United Nations may restrict funding to previous UN resolutions if they deem such action necessary to restoring their political stability and national sovereignty.
----


While I like the aims of this resolution, as I feel many previous UN resolutions infringe on national sovereignty, I have two major concerns with this resolution:
1. I don't know what it's position on future resolutions is.
2. I don't know how I feel about supporting Gatesville's "death to the liberal UN" policy.



Just thought I'd put this up for debate :)

If there's some sort of consensus leaning towards this proposal, then maybe I'll approve it, and help it reach quorum.

That's funny, I was flying over Gatesville (it has over 700 nations!) earlier. Seems like an interesting concept, however. It *would* be nice if we had some limitations!

Lelana

I asked the writer of the resolution about how, if in any way, this will effect future resolutions (to clear one of my concerns), and thier answer was:

Our resolution will have no effect on future resolutions. The only reason it has an effect old old resolutions is because it is, by having a strong effect on political stability, effectively undoing some of the influence old resolutions have had in the opposite direction. :-)

I look forward to your support in getting this to a vote. At that point, we can and will eagerly debate the resolution's merits -- in the meantime, we just want to pass the muster of "Should we even be discussing this?", and we think we should.

Lets do it. cant hurt to put it on the table, can it?

I think it would be reasonable to help this resolution make quorum.

*jumps on the band-wagon*
Why not?

I have approved this proposal, to help it reach quorum.

Well that sucks....

After receiving over 50 delegate approvals, this proposal was deleted by the mods. Apparently, it constituted a change in game mechanics, by repealing previous resolutions...thus it was not allowed.

Oh well. Lazy coders I guess...

That bites. *grumbling* Stupid mods.

Lelana

Maybe it wasn't a matter of coding.

Maybe it would have been near to impossible to implement.

*shrugs*

:unsure:

It would have involved the addition of additional code within the game engine to eradicate those changes since implemented and leave that which is yet to be implemented intact. No mean feat by any reckoning. Maybe NationStates2 will be able to do this. The only drawback is that you will need to subscribe.