[boricuastan]

This proposal has already been submitted, and I don't know where else to post this, so I'll post it here, and if the powers-that-be think it's better elsewhere, they are free to move it.

I would just like to make it clear to the members of the IDU that this was submitted this at the behest of Game Moderators seeking IC justification for the already-effective rule banning UN military forces. This is not a fiendish attempt to deprive the UN of power it does not have, but the response to a request to "enforce" current proposal rules through UN legislation. Thank you.

Quote: Prohibition of UN Military
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Determined to maintain the neutrality of the United Nations over international affairs, and to protect the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states,

This Assembly hereby resolves:

1. Member states shall neither raise nor contribute funds or forces toward the creation of any army or police force under the banner or command of the NationStates United Nations;

2. Member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force.[/quote]
Link for approvals here.

I appreciate your support.

[Embolalia]

Not a bad idea. I'd certainly vote for it!

[Grosseschnauzer]

I've gone ahead and gave the proposal an approval (which actually gave it the 121 approvals it needed to go into the queue for a floor vote.
That's out of respect to the NS mods; however, I'm not clear on why they feel they need a UN resoltuion to cover something they've stated in the past was a game rule.
Of course, we'll see what the region wants to do, and how this is received in the rest of Nationstates.

[Quintessence of Dust]

One thing I would say is it would be nice to have an in-character justification for there being no UN military. "It's against the rules" is a bit weak: a resolution explicitly outlawing it certainly isn't.