Revamping the UN

[Lockesdonkey]

For my thoughts and plan for UN Peacekeeping, click here.

Otherwise, I think that the UN deserves to change and become a viable method of attaining advantages and preventing war (you warmongers probably wouldn't like that, but hey, us builders/economists wouldn't mind, and you can withdraw from the UN anyways).

So here goes:
Structure of the UN
The UN will be composed of a General Assembly and Security Council, just like real life. Each will be smaller, though.

UN General Assembly (UNGA or GA)

The GA is composed of all member nations of the UN. At the beginning, that means all countries in existance at the time of the building of the UN. The GA concerns itself with humanitarian aid (still working on it, I think I'm close to a working system!), and admission/expulsion of nations, among other things. In order to be admitted, it requires a simple absolute majority vote (so if there are twenty member states, eleven yes votes are required for admission--ten yes, nine no, and one abstension doesn't cut it). A two-thirds (rounded up) majority vote is required to expel a nation from the UN. Short of expelling the nation, the General Assembly can censure a nation with a simple majority of nations voting (so to censure a nation, ten yes, nine no, and one abstension does cut it). The General Assembly also elects non-permanent Security Council members and the Secretary-General. A nation with sufficient power can also request to replace a permanent Security Council member; this would require a two-thirds majority vote.

UN Security Council (UNSC)

The permanent members are the nation that built the UN plus another either two or three, depending on the number of civs in the game. They will be the nation that builds the UN and the most powerful nation(s) which have the cleanest reputations. The number of non-permanent members of the UNSC is the number of permanent members times 3/2, rounded up. Non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly. The UNSC deals with matters of war and peace; it can do the following:

• Impose economic sanctions on a nation for commiting an atrocity (razing cities, using nuclear weapons, etc.)
• Authorize UN Peacekeeping Operations
• Authorize UN police actions (i.e., a nation has been attacked, a major ally wants to join in without declaring war, so a UN police action is set up, and they can send their forces to fight if they agree to the police action)
• Reccomend that a nation be censured by the General Assembly
• Nominates leaders for the Secretary-Generalship.

Permanent members have the veto, but can be overriden if all other voting nations vote yes.

Secretary-General
The UN S-G is not one of the leaders of a major civ. It must be the leader of a minor civ. In order to win diplo, you must maintain his favor so that when you build another Great Wonder, you will be one of the candidates for Global Hegemon (or World President or Grand High Pooh-Bah or whatever...). He picks both of them, and yes, they both must be from major civs. You must win three elections in a row to be the diplo winner (perhaps...I haven't thought this out thoroughly). Yes, you can bribe other leaders, including the Secretary-General. As Global Hegemon, you gain increased powers, including being the commanding nation of all peacekeeping operations, and the ability to order nations to do certain things. You have the right to take away a certain number of forces from each nation to fight all nations which are outside the UN or otherwise resist your election. Do not abuse your power. Your next election depends on it, and you must win three consecutive ten-turn terms to win the game.

 

[ledfan]

similar to what i was getting at in one of my posts, though you have come up with a possible system for it as well.
If the freedom of speech idea is implemented in CIV 4, only nation that has chossen that path could be allowed in to the UN.
Nations that have chossen the other path (slavery, dictatorship, genocide etc) are automatically shunned by the UN, and cannot win diplomatically. Obviously other advantages would have to be given to these war-monger "Bad" nations to maintain the balance and make both paths viable.

not sure how good this would be, maybe good for a laugh, but how about a orginisation for the "bad" nations. Good nations have the UN, bad nations have a terrorist support network or something similar!!??

 

[Lockesdonkey]

That's rather unrealistic. Many nations with bad human rights records have been admitted to the UN. Look at the Soviet Union, and it was a permanent member of the Security Council. However, I agree with you indirectly that a dictatorship would not be able to win diplo, but for this reason: the stated reason of the UN is to perserve peace and prevent war, so if it is successful, most nations will be peaceful; and when things are peaceful, the cost/benefit analysis of the AI states that it goes Democratic. Democracies should be OK with having dictatorships in existance, but since the government would get voted out of office if they let a dictator take over the world, they would not vote for the dictator.

 

[ledfan]

I agree with you, however if civ 4 were to remain balanced and appeal to war-mongers as well as peace loving players there would have to be at least two possible paths. As war-mongers generally wouldnt pay attention to any council, such as the proposed UN, they would have to be 'punished' in a way that would be realistic - being shunned by the UN could be one of these ways.
so...
1) democratic peaceful path - wouldn't be able to wage war that succesfuly or at least not an offensive war (disadvantage) unless asked by UN. However diplomatic victory is distinct possibility (advantage)
2) dictatorship war-monger path - domination/conquest victory distinct possibilty (advantage), diplomatic victory not possible or very hard (disadvantage)

these could be the general pro/cons but it would have to be much more detailed and balanced than that.

 

[Philips beard]

What about a UN system, developing from a League of nations, as it was in the 30's, to a true peacekeeping force, as the UN nowadays?

 

[lostcause]

It would be nice to have the UN be more than just a way to win. Peacekeepeing operations would be awsome in play.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think it is slightly more complicated than it need be. I would cut out Diplo victory entirely.

I like the idea of seperating the Security council from everything else, so keep it seperate (for the one who builds the wonder, and several other strongest ones). This encourages building the wonder, so it will still have some similarities to Civ3's UN.

One thing I'm a bit confused about. You say that all nations automatically enter, yet the General Assembly votes on whether or not a civ gets to enter. Wouldn't they already be in, and not have to be voted?

 

[searcheagle]

I think that the when the UN is built, all Civs are members, not just the largest, most powerful ones. I'd be for elimanating the diplomatic victory cause I dont even know how it is decided.

 

[Vael]

I believe a diplomatic victory is an excellent idea, though I'm not sure if I would want it to be constrained simply with the label "UN".

In my opinion, the complexity diplomacy in Civ needs to be increased a few notches before we can even consider such a victory and make it a legitimate and entertaining way to win. As of now the only way to improve relations seems to be through bribery - which is not how things work in the real world (not entirely anyways).

Rather, diplomacy should take into account varying interests for each faction. Each AI team would ask "will this deal put me ahead in the world?" or "if I attack this civ will it instigate his friendly neighbor into attacking me as well?" This is what a human player does and why games against other humans tend to play out so differently from single-player games. Even if the AI is capable of fighting well and managing its empire properly it does not mean much if it is unable to use those resources in a meaningful way.

 

[dh_epic]

The UN should have nothing to do with diplomatic victory. If they keep either or both, they each need to be rethought.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Which is what I am trying to do. The S-G names the candidates, not because he is the head of the UN but because he is a well-respected figure who understands diplomacy and human rights and can be trusted to select leaders who are likely to be fair global rulers.

Something I forgot to mention: In order to be selected as a candidate, you have to have a squeaky-clean rep. Or at least one of the cleanest. If your rep falls below a certain level, you can't be selected as a candidate, and in order to get it back up again, you have to do some serious aid and peacekeeping work.

 

[CurtSibling]

Some silly ideas:
You could be automatically punished economically (sanctions) for your warmongering if the AI owns the UN.
And the enemy civs could form large coalitions against you. Massive wars!

If you own it, you could force allies to team up on certain civs for a set number of turns, without them being able to refuse.
Also you could stop wars by using the UN to coerce enemy civs into peace.

......

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Sanctions are implemented as an embargo on that nation by all UN members for five turns. They are imposed for minor atrocities such as razing cities, using nuclear weapons that do not damage civilians (i.e., no cities, colonies, Workers or Settlers were damaged). It is the perogative of the UNSC to implement them.

Something I forgot to mention: The General Assembly defines atrocities. Some are hardwired, such as ROP rape, the use of nuclear weapons and the razing of cities. Others may be defined from a certain list by the General Assembly. These include use of military police (except to quell resistance), pop rushing, genocide (i.e. destroying all cities of another nation will not only bring the bad from razing cities, but will bring on an additional negative), and intentional starvation of a city which you have just captured (unless it would otherwise be in civil disorder). These must be passed in the game by the UN, so if you have a world in which there are alot of wars, none of these will be passed. But if the majority of nations are democratic and peaceful, these will in all likelihood pass. Beware all warmongers.

As I said earlier, any member of the Security Council can call it to session for any reason at any time. The General Assembly is automatically called into session every five turns, and can be called to session by any nation at any time if they have a reason (a starving city, they were attacked, a plague broke out, a province rebelled, etc., etc., etc.). After the matter at hand is settled, anyone can call for another proposal, unless it would reverse a proposal passed during that session (for example, you can't declare use of military police an atrocity at the beginning of the session, only to repeal that at the end). When no more proposals are available, the session is over.

 

[Mewtarthio]

not sure how good this would be, maybe good for a laugh, but how about a orginisation for the "bad" nations. Good nations have the UN, bad nations have a terrorist support network or something similar!!??

That would be hilarious. "Welcome to the UN of EVIL! Today's agenda: a ban on nuclear testing on uninhabited islands. All further testing should be done on densely populated cities!"

As to the atrocities suggestion, are you talking about something like Alpha Centauri? Oh, and nuclear weapons shouldn't be auto-banned. It's not to much of a stretch to imagine a world where civillian casualties are considered acceptable collateral damage. Heck, normal bombing of anything causes collateral damage, but you won't see anyone coming up to illegalize bombs anytime soon (yeah, I know somebody already outlawed war a while back, but that didn't hold too long).

 

[sir_schwick]

Yeah, the Kellog-Briand(Brian-d?) Pact did not have the intended effect. Its a lot like telling people to stop smoking weed. Oops did I say that out loud?

I would like to see the UN be more like the SMAC council.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I think that the excitement of seeing the way units will be handled in Civ 4 has made people ignore this a bit too much for my liking.

 

[minger]

I don't know if there are enough civs to have a separate GA and Security Council. I'd rather just have one voting body with no veto powers (like SMAC) -- yes it's not accurate in terms of real life, but i think it would be moree fun.

 

[Ramalhão]

Otherwise, I think that the UN deserves to change and become a viable method of attaining advantages and preventing war (you warmongers probably wouldn't like that, but hey, us builders/economists wouldn't mind, and you can withdraw from the UN anyways).

I also want UN becoming something better than just giving diplomatic victory. Modern age is too short, but UN could be useful anyway, like preventing nuclear bombs.

So here goes:
UN General Assembly (UNGA or GA)

The GA is composed of all member nations of the UN. At the beginning, that means all countries in existance at the time of the building of the UN. The GA concerns itself with humanitarian aid (still working on it, I think I'm close to a working system!), and admission/expulsion of nations, among other things. In order to be admitted, it requires a simple absolute majority vote (so if there are twenty member states, eleven yes votes are required for admission--ten yes, nine no, and one abstension doesn't cut it). A two-thirds (rounded up) majority vote is required to expel a nation from the UN. Short of expelling the nation, the General Assembly can censure a nation with a simple majority of nations voting (so to censure a nation, ten yes, nine no, and one abstension does cut it). The General Assembly also elects non-permanent Security Council members and the Secretary-General. A nation with sufficient power can also request to replace a permanent Security Council member; this would require a two-thirds majority vote.

I prefer inviting all nations when UN is done rather than "obligating" all nations to join. So, any leader can choice to join and respect what UN decides or choice to go to "the dark side" and do anything that he wants (subjecting to UN sanctions and even a war).

UN Security Council (UNSC)

The permanent members are the nation that built the UN plus another either two or three, depending on the number of civs in the game. They will be the nation that builds the UN and the most powerful nation(s) which have the cleanest reputations. The number of non-permanent members of the UNSC is the number of permanent members times 3/2(Is this right? Shouldn't it be 2/3?), rounded up. Non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly. The UNSC deals with matters of war and peace; it can do the following:

• Impose economic sanctions on a nation for commiting an atrocity (razing cities, using nuclear weapons, etc.)
• Authorize UN Peacekeeping Operations
• Authorize UN police actions (i.e., a nation has been attacked, a major ally wants to join in without declaring war, so a UN police action is set up, and they can send their forces to fight if they agree to the police action)
• Reccomend that a nation be censured by the General Assembly
• Nominates leaders for the Secretary-Generalship.

Permanent members have the veto, but can be overriden if all other voting nations vote yes.

Members of this Security Council should be able to build a special unit (or convert some units), the blue berets, which could be abe to enter any city to defend it from attackers. Obviously, they just could enter in any city of a nation under attack and after the council decides to defend this nation. And of course these units can't invade attacking nation and never get any city (to prevent abusing).

I don't like the idea of veto, but your idea to override veto is good.

Secretary-General
The UN S-G is not one of the leaders of a major civ. It must be the leader of a minor civ. In order to win diplo, you must maintain his favor so that when you build another Great Wonder, you will be one of the candidates for Global Hegemon (or World President or Grand High Pooh-Bah or whatever...). He picks both of them, and yes, they both must be from major civs. You must win three elections in a row to be the diplo winner (perhaps...I haven't thought this out thoroughly). Yes, you can bribe other leaders, including the Secretary-General. As Global Hegemon, you gain increased powers, including being the commanding nation of all peacekeeping operations, and the ability to order nations to do certain things. You have the right to take away a certain number of forces from each nation to fight all nations which are outside the UN or otherwise resist your election. Do not abuse your power. Your next election depends on it, and you must win three consecutive ten-turn terms to win the game.

I think this election wouldn't be exactly after UN finishes, there would be 5 or 10 turns and then the election is done. I like the idea of winning three elections in a row to win diplomatically, but in multiplayer it must be only one - no one will vote the guy who won last time, don't you think?

similar to what i was getting at in one of my posts, though you have come up with a possible system for it as well.
If the freedom of speech idea is implemented in CIV 4, only nation that has chossen that path could be allowed in to the UN.
Nations that have chossen the other path (slavery, dictatorship, genocide etc) are automatically shunned by the UN, and cannot win diplomatically. Obviously other advantages would have to be given to these war-monger "Bad" nations to maintain the balance and make both paths viable.

Freedom of speech is implemented in Civ4. And preventing warmongers to win using one of "pacific ways of winning" is a good idea- that doesn't make any sense. But all nations can join UN, even the dictators - there are so few nations in Civ compared to reality, so let anyone join it. I don't want to see an UN with only 2 or 3 nations.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Indeed, Ramalhao. Those are good points; consider them part of the concept.

Considering the fact that Barbs become Minor Nations, I think it is possible to have two parts to the UN, though perhaps not. In any case, if the number is too small, then the UNSC would also function as the UNGA.

 

[sir_schwick]

Although not completely realistic, this would make the UN(an analog organizations) more gameplay related. First, there would be three types of multi-lateral organizations.

Leagues - This is just a general term for leagues/pacts/organizations created among strategic partners. They act as more concrete versions of multi-lateral negotiations with more benefits/rules. RL examples include the EU, NATO, Hanseatic League.

Religious Authority - This would relate to religions obviously. Only members of the particular religious 'nation' could join or be expelled. Mostly allows use of Vatican-ish abilities and units. The only RL example I can think of is the Vatican during the middle ages.

UN-like organization - Obviously restricted to more modern times, the UN(and maybe WTO) would be very interesting. Current members could vote to exclude current members(2/3 vote). Members can build peacekeeper units, which are good but cheap and does not require support but are restricted to crisis zones or home. However they cannot commit war crimes, build unconventional strategic units, or do some other things. Obviously none-members can be branded as evil people, but have plenty of tools to keep up.