GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION: Repeal "Neutrality of Nations" [Complete] [Complete]

Blackshear

Blackshear

TNPer
Repeal "Neutrality of Nations"

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #14: Neutrality of Nations (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

ACKNOWLEDGING that indeed “it is a right of any Nation that is uninvolved in a war to make a formal claim of Neutrality”;

FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that there were good intentions behind “Neutrality of Nations” and that the vast majority of the Ambassadors and Delegates who voted for “Neutrality of Nations” did so thinking they were actually advancing the cause of world peace; hence:

DISMAYED that despite its name, GA #14 “Neutrality of Nations” does nothing to promote world peace, but does the exact opposite;

PERPLEXED that any nation may switch between “Neutral” and “Belligerent” at any time according to the terms of the Resolution, as their mood strikes them, without any penalties and without fear of acting in violation of international war conventions;

SHOCKED that section 3.a) states that any nation can have its claim of neutrality voided on the sole basis of indirect trade (which it may ultimately have no control over) of ill-defined “supplies”, such as “goods” and “personnel”, which can encompass basic humanitarian needs such as food, potable water, medical supplies and medical personnel;

OUTRAGED that GA #14 says, in relevant part:

“2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.”

SADLY NOTING that the conditions for “improv[ing] world peace” are not defined anywhere;

REALIZING the appalling potential for extreme abuse of this single clause; it gives “Belligerent Nations” unlimited power to invade or occupy any self-proclaimed neutral nation, merely by “convincing” the World Assembly that such a shameful act will “improve world peace”.

CONVINCED that such a state of uncertainty does create an international environment where war is even more probable, instead of creating peace;

THEREFORE, in the best interests of peace, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #14.



Voting Ends: in 3 days 16 hours (at time of posting)


Thoughts?
 
I voted against this resolution that is now before the general body of the WA. I think that the previous resolution that was passed stands it grounds pretty fair that that someone just wanted to challenge the neutrality of countries. If this repeal passes, in which it looks like it will, something needs to replace the current act very soon to protect countries who wish to remain neutral.

I also would like to comment that since my time as a WA a member, I do not think that any resolutions that have came before the general body of the WA has ever failed. I really wonder if the majority of people actually look at, research, and discuss these resolutions that come before the WA. Because most just get passed with out any challenges against them.
 
Vilnoia1:
I do not think that any resolutions that have came before the general body of the WA has ever failed. I really wonder if the majority of people actually look at, research, and discuss these resolutions that come before the WA. Because most just get passed with out any challenges against them.
Click to expand...
I was discussing this with the delegate of Canada (and some others). It seems most people couldn't be bothered to read these things and simply like being for something. It's an easy way to feel part of an accomplishment.

I personally dislike the "Repeal" mechanic. It's way over-used.
 
The problem with the repeal mechanism is that in order to amend a prior resolution it has to be repealed, and then it can be resubmitted for adoption in an amended form.

It's an inane way of doing it, and it was the case during the UN era of NS. It's the one game element that hasn't been addressed, and should be. I've suggested at some point in the past that the coding solution might be to program a "repeal" and the adoption of an "amended" resolution at the same time, which would in fact be the workaround for having amendments to existing resolutions.

It's just too easy to critique a previously enacted resolution and get enough endorsements to go to the GA floor, and then pass the repeal.

If amendments were possible in a single proposal rather than the two step that is currently required, it would cut down on repeals, and focus on improving previously adopted resolutions by fixing whatever was wrong.

As to the current repeal at vote, it would be nice to know if anyone has gone back to see if the claims of the repeal are accurate, and whether the critiques are things that could be fixed by an amended proposal.
 
It seems like the things that this repeal is looking at is the wording of the other resolution. There are lots of good things in the original piece and I do not think it all needs to be repealed. It may needs to be amended and the wording be changed but it should not be totally 100% repealed.
 
I voted also nay because I always see the this proposal always asks for committees and delegates to get together but the never do.
 
<b>Voting on this resolution has ended.</b>

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.
 
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 WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top