At Vote: Rights of Neutral States [Complete]

[Former English Colony]

Rights of Neutral States

Turn your vote in by Monday night.

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Wolfish

Description: RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war and defend themselves from attack;

NOTING that nations may, from time to time, declare themselves neutral, and

DEFINING a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations, thus

AFFIRMING that it is the right of nations which are not belligerents in such a conflict to make a claim of neutrality;

ALSO AWARE that such states need the support and respect of the NationStates United Nations to maintain that neutrality;

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE THAT a neutral state must abide by the following terms:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, through either force of arms or other support.

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

Violation of these terms shall render neutrality broken.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

 

[Former English Colony]

This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I will vote YEA, although tentatively because of my belief that it is extremely hard for countries who do not have significant geographical barriers to remain truly neutral in every way, especially with regards to 4.

Indeed, many countries declare themselves neutral, but merely for the sake of politics and do not steadfastly follow/adhere to that neutrality.

 

[IndieGirl]

I voted yes, and I would tell you my reasoning, but I can't as it may compromise our agents in the field.

 

[Namyeknom]

I have no particular feelings on this, although theres something about it that makes me itch. Combined with what I see as a reasonably useless resolution from an NS perspective...

AGAINST

 

[Sirixis]

Useless resolution. Only signatories are required to recognize a nation's neutrality. Aggressive, belligerent nations are unlikely to sign such a document. What would their incentive be to do so?

That said, I'll pretend NationStates is an ideal world for one week and vote FOR this resolution. I like to eat a little pie in the sky every once in a while.

 

[Mr.Gaunt]

Kitabo votes FOR.

 

[WishyWashyWonder]

I'm FOR this. Hope I'm not too late.

 

[Conneticun]

I vote for this resolution. If an aggressive country didn't recognise the neutral one, then I doubt the country would be able to remain neutral for long anyway.

 

[Former English Colony]

I'm FOR this. Hope I'm not too late.

It's only Sunday night.... voting ends prolly at noon PST on Tuesday, and I asked for votes in by Monday night. I think you're in plenty of time.

 

[Former English Colony]

Voting FOR this resolution

 

[Former English Colony]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.