Re: The First Initial Meeting of The Nations of the World

by Central Texas Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:10 pm

OOC: I am just saying a Nuclear Authority of elected members. Should decide who is able to having nuclear launch and missile capabilities. Civilian Nuclear power has no need for approval. This is to make sure the wishes of the world don't be vetoed by some nation's ego. But how to develop stuff will be covered in my system idea. Which I will post in the open discussion thread.

by Brighton Kensington Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:13 pm

OOC: Well that would have to be developed later on in the future when more people get involved

by Central Texas Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:24 pm

OOC: I will be posting the proposed system in a bit. Also Winston.........what happened to your profile pic O.o

by Brighton Kensington Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:29 pm

haha i just thought it was funny Laughing

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:37 am

I was going to propose a chemical, biological, radiological weapon ban be written in the constitution/charter.

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:39 am

OOC: I rather we just have a separate resolution to cover that. So we can also make sure procedures on voting things and such are good enough for future things.

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:40 am

Although writing a way to develop them into the war rules I would also accept. Thus allowing for rogue nation RP.

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:41 am

OOC: Honestly I feel the war rules should only explain when wars start end and if need be cease for bit. And also explain war rp. And consensus on both sides to start it. Nothing more. It should just be an OOC thing. Now Mr.Boost why don't you get us started on the general provisions article?

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:42 am

Central Texas wrote:"Alright now this first article shall be Article One: General Provisions. This will further expand the reason for the NOTW. And clarify the rights of nations and their people. Also I suggest it cover nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. Now I feel I have taken this podium too much. So I yield to whoever wishes to present Article One." Said Howard into the microphone. And afterwards stepped down from the podium and went back to his seat.

You know, sometimes you really confuse me. affraid

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:46 am

OOC: My brain once it makes a comment forgets completely.......so let's jut say Howard is a bit on the light headed side today...

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:56 am

OOC: I need to know a few things first. Do we want to go all Declaration of Human Rights in this? Do we want to say every nation must guarantee these rights? Do we want to include inactivity laws? The reason I ask this is that from the tags on the region page we seem to be willing to welcome any type of nation, which I think is a good thing, but hard core communist nations will be essentially ant-religion. Remember it's the opiate of the people. I would like to adopt a stance where the organization as whole says, "What you do in your own house is your business, we won't get involved until you mess with someone elses house".

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:00 am

OOC: I support the declaration. And the inactivity laws can be a separate rule set as OOC. But is on the same level as the charter so to speak.

by **Chairman Brander** Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:00 am

OOC: That is exactly how I feel, I think we should let other nations be their own and do as they please.

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:05 am

OOC: Maybe we can just put a firm stance. Since while some nations say they have free speech. They really just suppress everything and kill anyone that speaks out. Example is North Korea. So I believe there should be a declaration that insures that the state protects these rights. But if they mess up the DC can just step right in and say you gotta stop and make sure the people have what they want.

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:10 am

That said though there are some things that are so abominable that everyone could agree to prohibit. So while not necessarily guaranteeing such things as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech we could perhaps prohibit such actions as genocide, human trafficking, what other things are that reprehensible?

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:14 am

OOC: I rather we protect the freedom of speak and religion. Though while some socialist governments today maintain atheist views. They turn a blind eye to religion at the personal level. China is a good example. But we should create a list of Greater Crimes against Humanity which include all that you said CSM.

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:18 am

Central Texas wrote:OOC: Maybe we can just put a firm stance. Since while some nations say they have free speech. They really just suppress everything and kill anyone that speaks out. Example is North Korea. So I believe there should be a declaration that insures that the state protects these rights. But if they mess up the DC can just step right in and say you gotta stop and make sure the people have what they want.

But isn't trying to force what you think is right on another society really a form of tyranny? The Russians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans et all installed those governments via revolution in the first place. The Communist Manifesto is quite clear about Dictatorship of the Proletariat being a stage of communism. So all they really have is what they asked for in the first place.

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:20 am

OOC: Why don't we just say every government is obligated to provide it's citizens suitable environment and protect their human rights. And don't exactly state those rights?

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:38 am

I think I may have found a middle ground. Bear with me here. Crime against humanity is defined as a systematic attack by a government, or government like entity, on a specific group of people. These can be racial groups, religious groups, or sexual groups. which include but are not limited to the following

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[23]

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:40 am

OOC;I like that list. But I still wish for us to cover rights. Should we just say each and every government must protect the rights of it's people. But not directly state those rights?

by Brighton Kensington Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:49 am

But the rights of your people may not be the same as another's which would make it redundant. Basic rights too me are America's 1st amendment but to someone else is something entirely different

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:51 am

OOC: Which is why I stated to protect their people's rights. Meaning it varies country to country, Based on their constitution etc. But I believe we can agree on a rights for when dealing in a court of law. And dealing with the NOTW.

by Brighton Kensington Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:55 am

But your saying people's rights as in your example of people's rights. You can't be upset or anything when people treat their people like crap and then saying "It's their rights." Or something ludicrous like that.

by Central Texas Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:57 pm

OOC: Well then we should then establish rights. And say you must protect these rights of your people. Since while it may seem tyrannical isn't the point of this organization to make the world a better place? And to make sure people live their life happily. So at one point the NOTW will have to get into a nation's business. So I rather it be in human rights. Then let's say a fullscale war.

by **David Boose** Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:45 pm

Let's start here

Article I Purpose and General Provisions

Section 1 The purposes of the Nations of the World are:

To maintain international peace and security amongst it's members, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention of threats to the peace, the suppression of acts of aggression, and to bring about by peaceful means, and employing the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination, and to other appropriate measures to strengthen global peace; and
To achieve international cooperation in solving worldwide problems of economic, social, cultural, Scientific, or humanitarian character; in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights; and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to culture, sex, or religious belief.

by Sponsored content