UN and Denied Resolutions-Wrong Way of Doing Things?

[DrewBledsoe]

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but isn't the way the UN works completely wrong in cases?

Here's what I mean....Mansa builds the UN, submits Universal Sufferage as a proposal, and 13 nations vote yes, but one little brand new colony denies the motion, thus it fails. Surely the motion should pass, as it easily had the requisite amount of votes, and all those who didn't deny the resolution should adopt US. The nation(s) that deny the motion, get a very nasty unhappiness penalty anyway, thats their punishment.

Surely if a motion has enough votes, then it should pass, with all nations then adopting it, unless as above they are denying the motion. The only exception, would be when voting on restoring a city to its former owner. Then if the present holder denies this motion, they get the unhappiness, and the motion is denied whatever the votes.

Surely this system is a better idea, as in most of my games (with 13 basic civs and some colonies) someone will "deny" just about every single motion, kinda making the UN completely pointless.

Whats anyone think?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Could not have said it better myself. This has enormous implications for the No-Nukes resolution, because in theory those nations which voted YES should no longer be able to build nukes! The very nature of defying a resolution implies that you are going against world opinion, the course most nations are taking. As it stands, what we have now is more like a veto--one nation defies, nothing happens.

I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions.

Trouble is, what do you do with a nation that voted NO? Must they, too, succumb to the will of the U.N.? Probably, considering they didn't defy it.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Could not have said it better myself. This has enormous implications for the No-Nukes resolution, because in theory those nations which voted YES should no longer be able to build nukes! The very nature of defying a resolution implies that you are going against world opinion, the course most nations are taking. As it stands, what we have now is more like a veto--one nation defies, nothing happens.

I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions.

Trouble is, what do you do with a nation that voted NO? Must they, too, succumb to the will of the U.N.? Probably, considering they didn't defy it.

Glad you agree

Well the Point of the UN, is that its supposed to be a democratic institution. If Mali make a proposal which is put to world vote, then you have 3 options:- Yes, No, or Never!.

If the motion passes by whatever requisite votes were deemed necessary, then even if you voted no, you have to adopt it. That's the point of the UN, and democracy in action. As you said, at the moment, it only takes one nation to vote Never!, and the motion fails, making every motion blockable by one nation, however small.

This absolutely isn't how the UN works irl. The nations that defy resolutions, are quite rightly looked upon as world "villains" (reflected well in the game), but having them block resolutions completely makes it just a "free for all in the game", e.g. "Well nation "x" defied the motion, so we'll do whatever we want too", and this to me is wrong.

 

[alpaca]

Well vetoes do exist in the real UN though. Defying a resolution is in my opinion indeed a representation of this.

 

[Olleus]

But only 5 countries out of 200 in the real world have the veto. In my mind, this is represented by the nation having the secratary general having a veto as only it can propose resolutions.

 

[bode404]

Completely agree.
If a nation votes never, it should be allowed to ignore the resolution - at the cost of unhappiness in its cities - but not neutralize every other vote.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

But only 5 countries out of 200 in the real world have the veto. In my mind, this is represented by the nation having the secratary general having a veto as only it can propose resolutions.

I was going to say something like that

In my game example, it's often nations equivalent to say Iceland or Bahrain (in pop) who are in effect running world politics. Again from the game example, a brand new colony nation will quite probably have no towns, and the ai controlling it will of course always "veto"(deny) Universal Sufferage. It shouldn't have the power to stop the rest of the world adopting it.

 

[snipafist]

I wish the "defy" option wasn't available when it was time to vote, but rather, was an option after the votes had been cast. If the UN prohibits nukes but you want to build up your arsenal anyways, you don't scream bloody defiance before the votes are cast, you do so after you see the result. Even then, everyone who hasn't defied the result should accept the resolution, but be capable of defying it later at a cost to happiness (and world reputation I would hope).

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I wish the "defy" option wasn't available when it was time to vote, but rather, was an option after the votes had been cast. If the UN prohibits nukes but you want to build up your arsenal anyways, you don't scream bloody defiance before the votes are cast, you do so after you see the result. Even then, everyone who hasn't defied the result should accept the resolution, but be capable of defying it later at a cost to happiness (and world reputation I would hope).

Like the idea ! But returning a city to a previous owner still has to be "defied at voting stage" I suppose.

 

[Bhruic]

Yeah, to me the whole concept of "defying" the motion means just that - you are defying it. You can't really defy something that doesn't happen. And yes, you should have the choice of defying a resolution at any stage (well, the ones for which that makes sense, you can't really choose to defy giving a city back at a later stage).

In the same vein, it seems to me that the UN, as a diplomatic institution should create diplomatic penalties, not happiness penalties. Or at least as well as happiness penalties. Defying a resolution should give negative relationship hits.

Bh

 

[Ammar]

Yes, I don't like it as it is now. Resolutions should still be in effects for those members who didn't deny. Only example IMO should be nuclear weapons. I just can't see anyone stopping to build them if a rogue power still has them.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Like the idea ! But returning a city to a previous owner still has to be "defied at voting stage" I suppose.

No, not at all...

Put yourself in a world leader's position. A foreign alliance wants to turn over control of one of your cities. Do you scream bloody hell from the outset, or keep quiet, see how the voting goes, and then happily smirk when one of the big guys vetoes it in the Security Council or the majority votes "no"? OF COURSE, you'd keep quiet... then scream bloody hell if it doesn't go your way.

 

[Andvare]

Not the best idea to let the resolution pass, and let one country go it's own way. Imagine even a small country being the only one with nukes.
Now that would open up for some cheesy tactics.
Besides there aren't 200 nations in the game, only about the same number as seats in the security council, okay, usually more, but still.

 

[mrt144]

how about figuring out why UN elections dont happen often enough for some marathon players

 

[bode404]

In my game example, it's often nations equivalent to say Iceland or Bahrain (in pop) who are in effect running world politics. Again from the game example, a brand new colony nation will quite probably have no towns, and the ai controlling it will of course always "veto"(deny) Universal Sufferage. It shouldn't have the power to stop the rest of the world adopting it.

It seems reasonable that the Veto option could appear only to countries with at least, say, 15% of the world's population.

 

[Andvare]

It seems reasonable that the Veto option could appear only to countries with at least, say, 15% of the world's population.

Which would mean that only China of the current sec. council members should have that ability?

Say 10% power, or somesuch, and I would be inclined to agree.

The US, second largest member of said council, has "only" 5% of the worlds population.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

No, not at all...

Put yourself in a world leader's position. A foreign alliance wants to turn over control of one of your cities. Do you scream bloody hell from the outset, or keep quiet, see how the voting goes, and then happily smirk when one of the big guys vetoes it in the Security Council or the majority votes "no"? OF COURSE, you'd keep quiet... then scream bloody hell if it doesn't go your way.

Fair enough, but then the game would have to be reprogrammed...i.e after each and every motion is voted on, before anything happens, each nation has the chance to defy the motion if it passed.

Which is fair enough to me, just slightly more complicated than my original proposal.

 

[bode404]

Which would mean that only China of the current sec. council members should have that ability?

Say 10% power, or somesuch, and I would be inclined to agree.

The US, second largest member of said council, has "only" 5% of the worlds population.

Populational percentages in a Civ game are greatly different from the ones in real life. You'd hardly have 10 countries in the world by the time the UN is running.

 

[Da_Man_2423]

Nations can do whatever they want in real life...they don't have do ANYTHING the UN says. Of course severe penalties apply.

 

[Andvare]

Populational percentages in a Civ game are greatly different from the ones in real life. You'd hardly have 10 countries in the world by the time the UN is running.

Of course, but then were do one stop using the real world as a reference?