Lazy Wizard
TNPer
There seems to be a lot of folk who do not like the previous UN resolutions. Most usual arguments are that "the language is not good" or "the resolution is too narrow". Some of those people then writes a brief repeal and it passes. However the substituting proposal could be far away from passing at the UN. In such case, that "resolutionless" period may not be what the majority of UN nations want.
This makes me ask: why do we have to suffer a repeal every time someone wants to improve some resolution? Why couldn't a resolution with bad languange but good intentions be replaced instead of the present two-steps procedure of repeals before writing new? It would be more honest to the voters if they saw what was the new alternative (of a resolution) going to be like.
My and then some.
This makes me ask: why do we have to suffer a repeal every time someone wants to improve some resolution? Why couldn't a resolution with bad languange but good intentions be replaced instead of the present two-steps procedure of repeals before writing new? It would be more honest to the voters if they saw what was the new alternative (of a resolution) going to be like.
My and then some.