PROPOSAL: Condemnation of Nebula

We strongly object; an embargo cannot be opt-out! Without this provision the resolution is of no substance.
 
RPI:
I have changed my vote to nay because I disagree with the wording of the following:
RESOLVES to stop the sale or purchase of all goods to Nebula that fall under the category of...
Click to expand...
I do not believe the NPTO has international authority to try to halt a nation's trade with all nations, as this phrase suggests. That itself is a violation of the Watching Nebula's sovereignty. I would recommend rewording of that phrase to be something to the effect of encouraging NPTO members from trading with the Watching Nebula.

I encourage all other representatives to vote nay as well, until this is changed.
Click to expand...
It is not a violation of Nebulan sovereignty. It simply orders members of the NPTO to stop trading with Nebula. Member nations are bound by assembly law.
 
Let's leave it the way it is, so we don't create tensions in NPTO which could lead to a catastrophe. Besides, most of our members are for the condemnation and will likely be imposing the embargoes. Only two Faibuaizu Alliance members are in NPTO, so this change shouldn't matter all too much. The embargoes that are imposed will be large enough to produce the desired effects.
 
A vote should not be changed right in the middle of it because then those who voted may not realize there has been a change. Please change the original one back to how it was, though I will maintain my vote of "nay." If it is to be reintroduced, we can debate on whether or not to include "urges." I might be against "urges," because then like the Kannexan representative has mentioned, nothing is guaranteed. Then again, I don't know whether or not we should force members to do it. I think further debate is necessary.

Plembobrian representative[/quote:
It is not a violation of Nebulan sovereignty. It simply orders members of the NPTO to stop trading with Nebula. Member nations are bound by assembly law.
Click to expand...
As it currently reads, it intends to try and stop all Nebulan trade; therefore, I am against it.
 
RPI:
A vote should not be changed right in the middle of it because then those who voted may not realize there has been a change. Please change the original one back to how it was, though I will maintain my vote of "nay." If it is to be reintroduced, we can debate on whether or not to include "urges." I might be against "urges," because then like the Kannexan representative has mentioned, nothing is guaranteed. Then again, I don't know whether or not we should force members to do it. I think further debate is necessary.

Plembobrian representative[/quote:
It is not a violation of Nebulan sovereignty. It simply orders members of the NPTO to stop trading with Nebula. Member nations are bound by assembly law.
Click to expand...
As it currently reads, it intends to stop all Nebulan trade; therefore, I am against it.
Click to expand...
Again we agreed with RPI about this.
 
As we've stated, national sovereignty and world peace has been violated. This is a matter of the NPTO's legitimacy. Is NPTO willing to take real action to uphold international law and stability?

EDIT: The resolution stops all trade that falls under those categories.
 
The NPTO has no authority to establish international law except between its members. We cannot attempt to force non-members to stop trade with Nebula.
 
Kannex:
The North Pacific Treaty Organization Assembly,

APPALLED at the Empire of the Watching Nebula's gross violation of the national sovereignty of the Empire of Kannex,

ALARMED that the Nebulan Government has explicitly and undeniably expressed support and shipped weapons to terrorist groups in the Kannexan protectorate of Pelhafor, such as the Republican Guard,

NOTING that these terrorist groups have targeted civilians and police officers in Pelhafor in indiscriminate attacks,

SHOCKED that the Nebulan Government has openly called for anarchy and violence especially against authorities in Pelhafor,

hereby

CONDEMNS the Watching Nebula for the violation of international law;

RESOLVES that member-states of this Organization will end all of their sales, purchases, and investments to and from Nebula that fall under the category of:
  • small arms and munitions, offensive and defensive in nature,
  • heavy weaponry of any kind, including armed vehicles and missiles,
  • warships and aerial craft,
  • heavy metals and other materials used to produce vehicles,
  • automobiles of any kind,
  • petroleum,
  • and natural gas;

FURTHERMORE PROHIBITS any bank operating from Nebula from doing business in North Pacific Treaty Organization Member-States;

EFFECTS these measures into place until such time as the Nebulan Government satisfactorily apologizes to the Empire of Kannex, pledges to never interfere in Kannexan sovereignty again, and withdraws support from terrorist groups.
Click to expand...
Will this clarification suffice?
 
I find it inefficient that there is an argument on a proposal mid-vote, and I'm ending it. Reverted the proposal to its original state.
 
It would do better, yes. I request that the chair looks into voiding the current vote so that we can discuss this new proposal; I make such motion.
 
I second the motion. Do I have the power to void votes? Cus I can right now if I'm able to.
 
The Kannexan delegation would like to clarify if it is constitutionally possible under our Charter for the Chairperson to void a vote.
 
I suggest we leave it unidentified because voids like this shouldn't happen. We should discuss all we need to BEFORE the vote.

Also, do I have the power to void votes? Cus I can right now if I'm able to. I think this argument may be of significance to the proposal.
 
The Kannexan delegation raises a good question; I will thoroughly look through the Charter for clarification, if it exists.
Syrixia, I do not believe you may unless the chair specifically grants you that power.
 
Well, shoot. Here, let's pretend it's voided and start the argument now so we can reach a decision by the time Bootsie makes a decision.
 
Charter: Article Six; The Executive:
The Chairperson shall preside over meetings of the Assembly.
Click to expand...
I find the chair's power to void a vote would come from this phrase, if you all find enough here to say that such power exists. With the intent of reintroducing the proposal, I find that the chair may void a vote.
 
Even so, let's start the argument now so we can get that craziness out of the way.
 
Then let the debate begin! I believe (the following is major duh) that the main topic of debate was whether the proposal should urge its conditions or mandate them. I personally see the perspectives and benefits of both sides and will be neutral, though I'll jump in when I think it's apropos.

Let's get this done as quick as possible, folks, otherwise we'll be stuck in a political hell for the next couple days.
 
I feel that requiring it of all NPTO members might be a bit much, as those who vote aye can enforce this policy within their own government. Perhaps only a symbolic condemnation would be better.
 
I think we are using the same thread. Would someone please place the new proposal in the OP so that we don't need to continually click through the pages.
 
We of the Kannexan Reich firmly believe that firm action is needed to right that which is wrong. Nebula clearly violated international law by supporting separatist terrorism. An opt-out embargo will not be effective in achieving the goal of this resolution.
 
I see your viewpoint and agree with it on some points, but NPTO is not a world government, just an international organization. Commanding nations to do something would be a huge overstepping of NPTO's boundaries. However, if we word it in a way that STRONGLY URGES NPTO nations to embargo, etc. Nebula, it will keep the resolution within its boundaries while still accomplishing the intended functions of the resolution. Most NPTO members are for Nebulan condemnation and only 2 are against it, solely due to their membership in the Faibuaizu Alliance. I thusly do not see a difference in outcome between the wording "MANDATES" and the wording "STRONGLY URGES" because of that fact. Most NPTO nations would sanction or embargo, etc. Nebula with only two not doing so. The results would still be satisfactory.

I'll put this scenario into an easier-to-understand form:

If you know something's going to work and you have reasonable evidence to prove it, why attempt to fix it in the first place?
 
Yeah, we agreed with Syrixia, you need provide reasonable evidence to prove it aswell tried to find a solution first, before advising other nations to condemns or/and put sanctions or/and embargo, etc.
 
The agreed-upon international law that mandates each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of external agents, a principle laid down since the time of Westphalia. It is the right of the state to be supreme in its territory. It is what makes your country exist! Need I go on?
 
Mr Insanity:
Yeah, we agreed with Syrixia, you need provide reasonable evidence to prove it aswell tried to find a solution first, before advising other nations to condemns or/and put sanctions or/and embargo, etc.
Click to expand...
The evidence has already been discussed and shown over and over again. This is a violation of national sovereignty. Will the NPTO allow rogue states to subvert the principle of national sovereignty that the international order stands upon and fund terrorism?

The Kannexan delegation will allow the proposed changes by the Syrixian delegation.
 
Then I believe the debate is over! Excellent. Anything more to discuss before I move for a new vote?
 
Those nations that are members of the Faibaizu Alliance should have the right to control their own relations with the Watching Nebula. Urging the members of NPTO will have the support of all those willing and able to comply with the embargoes.
 
Kannex:
The agreed-upon international law that mandates each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of external agents, a principle laid down since the time of Westphalia. It is the right of the state to be supreme in its territory. It is what makes your country exist! Need I go on?
Click to expand...
We understand about this and that international law. However, we still staying neutral about this because We, Nebula and Wolfsea are in The Faibuaizu Alliance. So we are allies. If this proposal force on us and Wolfsea, this will hurt our membership with The NPTO or The Faibuaizu Alliance.
 
RPI:
Those nations that are members of the Faibaizu Alliance should have the right to control their own relations with the Watching Nebula. Urging the members of NPTO will have the support of all those willing and able to comply with the embargoes.
Click to expand...
Again, I agreed with RPI.
 
No, debate is not over when two people come to an agreement. Only three nations have stated opinions on this new draft; NPTO has many members.
 
Kannex:
Mr Insanity:
Yeah, we agreed with Syrixia, you need provide reasonable evidence to prove it aswell tried to find a solution first, before advising other nations to condemns or/and put sanctions or/and embargo, etc.
Click to expand...
The evidence has already been discussed and shown over and over again. This is a violation of national sovereignty. Will the NPTO allow rogue states to subvert the principle of national sovereignty that the international order stands upon and fund terrorism?

The Kannexan delegation will allow the proposed changes by the Syrixian delegation.
Click to expand...
Again, we are staying neutral about this.
 
Alright, I just want to get an efficient solution in a quick way; so we don't look like one of those chaotic bureaucracies that gets nothing done because they're bogged down in political procedures.

More opinions on the new proposal plox?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top