[SC - Passed] Liberate Aurelia

The Security Council,

Aware that in some instances of use a Security Council Liberation might be used upon a region that has grown inactive in order to save its regional history;

Noting that at the time of this resolution being submitted to the Security Council the region Aurelia has been under hostile occupation by forces of the similarly named region Auralia for 238 days;

Believing that in the case of Aurelia, a region that grew inactive over time, a Security Council Liberation has become necessary in order to prevent its history from being lost since the hostile occupiers have made their intent to refound the region publicly known;

Stating that former native nations and founder nation controllers Sjalhaven and United Provinces of Atlantica have expressed their governments' intent to oppose the forceful refound of Aurelia, supporting a Security Council Liberation in order to prevent it from happening;

Concerned once again by the actions of the forces of Auralia within Aurelia under the direction of King Nephmir II, a nation which has previously had its actions condemned by the international community on all sides;

Hereby liberates Aurelia.

Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[Reserved for IFV]

For.

For

For

My vote doesn't count, so I'll present a For and Against argument that are completely reasonable

Against - Liberations are bad, ruining the fun of poor defenseless raiders

For - Nephimir is bad, shouldn't be allowed any victories even tangentially

For

For

For.

Against

Enthusiastic For

Against

For

For

Hi all! This is going to be my first opinion as a citizen of TNP regarding a SC resolution.

I anticipate that, in principle, my vote will be Against. From what I was reading in the SC discussion forum on this topic (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=475194&start=75), I rescue the following data as facts (unless someone shows me otherwise):

1. Aurelia is a region that was inactive for about 3 years.

2. Such is the case, that the founding members do not remember the password.

3. Auralia entered the region and maintained a presence for more than 200 days without finding opposition or having expelled any nation from the region.

4. An intervention in Aurelia would imply an expulsion to the nations that control it today.

Thus, I understand that supporting an intervention in this case would imply an aggression against nations that, in practice, did not exercise aggression against other active nations. All the other explanations and arguments that I could read in the thread seem secondary to me (as the right of the founding nations to oppose the occupation having been inactive for a long time, or Nephmir's role in this matter, or the right to refound a region for a long time inactive, etc.).

I believe that the issue to be analyzed in this case should focus on the legitimacy of initiating coercive action against nations that did not exercise coercion (or at least not in a relevant proportion) against other nations, regardless of their stated and real objectives.

As I said, I am new at the forum and well as at NS, so maybe I am missing some relevant data. I would appreciate any information that clarifies the situation and makes me reverse my vote to accompany the recommendation of our WA Delegate.

Greetings and good life!

P.S.: Sorry if I made a grammar or spelling mistake, my native language is Spanish.

For

For.

For, because refounding in this sort of circumstance is bad.

For