National Sovereignty is, at its core, about the sovereign right of nations to govern themselves. The General Assembly should only legislate on matters that are truly international in scope, and in such a way that allows as much freedom in governing to World Assembly nations as is practical. This focus on not only the right, but the ability, of nations to govern themselves better than an international bureaucracy can is the foundation of the modern National Sovereigntist movement. Modern National Sovereigntists are not focused on destroying the World Assembly, but rather on limiting the General Assembly to truly international law and improving the quality of legislation one resolution at a time, for the benefit of sovereign nations.
In recent years the distinction between National Sovereignty and International Federalism, once so clear in the minds of General Assembly authors, has become blurred. This, along with the collapse or reduced activity of important National Sovereigntist regions -- which has been accompanied by the collapse of exclusively International Federalist regions as well -- has led some to suggest that the National Sovereigntist movement is dead. The truth is that the movement for National Sovereignty is never dead as long as there are those in the world who believe that national governance is preferable to international bureaucracy. National Sovereignty is alive and well, not so much concentrated in particular regions but in a worldwide movement that can now be found in many regions.
The first duty of any government is to its own people and for this reason the Osiris Fraternal Order is committed to the protection and advancement of National Sovereignty. As we have insisted upon the sovereign right of our own region to determine her own destiny and to pursue her own interests, so we insist upon that same right for the nations of Osiris. This commitment to National Sovereignty will not be placed to the side or on the back burner, as has been the case in many regions oriented toward gameplay, but rather will be integrated into our broader external policy. Long a priority of individual Osirans in their World Assembly voting, National Sovereignty will be a priority of the Osiris Fraternal Order and we will seek to leave a lasting mark on the General Assembly in favor of the sovereignty of nations.
This pursuit of National Sovereignty begins in earnest today with the publication of the following document, The Modern NatSov: Freedom to Govern. Authored by our Vizier and Scribe of Foreign Affairs, Treize Dreizehn, as well as Delegate Mousebumples of Europeia, this document explains the philosophy and aims of the modern National Sovereigntist movement. We are very pleased to present this document to the world with the signature of our Pharaoh, as well as the signatures of the Queen of Balder, our great ally and twin sister Sinker, and the Delegate of Monkey Island and the Founder of Antarctic Oasis, partner regions that have made historic contributions to the World Assembly.
We hope that this document and our renewed focus on National Sovereignty will encourage other regions to make the sovereignty of the nations residing within their borders a central priority of their external affairs. Any region that does so will find, in the Osiris Fraternal Order, a partner in the reinvigorated pursuit of National Sovereignty.
The Modern NatSov: Freedom to Govern
Introduction:
So you wanna be a NatSov? Well first you have to ask yourself what that is. National Sovereignty is the belief that Nations are better suited than the World Assembly at legislating on most matters. You'll note that I said most, not all, and we'll get into that soon. But first, let's talk about the link between the real world and the game world.
Sovereignty is a term full of meaning. At its core, it means the sole and absolute power over a nation. This does not necessarily indicate a dictatorship mind you, a democracy or republic can have sovereignty over a nation as well. But the decisions that the democracy or republic makes are to be considered absolute and unquestionable.
That's the base of sovereignty as a concept, but of course goes much further than that - especially as the term has changed throughout history. At first it generally meant a truly sovereign monarch, beholden to no laws or other persons (this was the model used in Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan") but with this idea came some of the earliest concepts associated with the social contract. Rousseau's later works on the subject began to shape the idea of a collective sovereignty (the social contract), which is much closer to how it is considered today.
In the real world, today, accepting the concept of the sovereignty of nations has helped result in one of the longest eras of peace in human history (despite the fact that we've had many wars in the last century, the world is more peaceful today than in almost any other period of human history). Sovereignty is so ingrained in our thinking that we find it hard to think of a border as some arbitrary distinction anymore. A nation is considered sovereign today in ways that centuries ago would've been just as hard to conceive of.
We have to remember that the game of Nationstates is a nation simulator. Under most modern concepts of the word, each nation possesses sovereignty. You can see that when you answer issues. You alone are responsible for your national history. RP's can only be entered into voluntarily. You can name your national religions, currency, national animal, and leaders. You have sole and absolute power over your nation, as long as you do not join the World Assembly.
Legislation:
It's clear that by joining the World Assembly that we give up *absolute* sovereignty. That does not, necessarily indicate a willingness to give up *all* sovereignty. That is the root of what I consider the Modern NatSov movement.
NatSov is the genuine belief that the sovereignty of nations should be preserved whenever possible, even when those nations are a part of the World Assembly. This is, strangely enough achieved through legislation. All repeals inherently increase national sovereignty by allowing nations more freedom to legislate on particular topics themselves, however, some repeals help explain the issue better than others. I think one of the best examples of a well meaning proposal that caused significant harm was the Habeas Corpus Act.
The HCA was a resolution proposed back in 2012. It mandated that except in a few circumstances, no one could be detained for longer than 6 hours every week without first being charged with a crime. This resolution did not provide any exceptions for the following: Child Protective Services (so children could only be removed from abusive homes for 6 hours a week), "drunk tanks", or detaining immigrants to ascertain the veracity of their documents and claims (such as asylum claims). An excellent repeal was written that pointed out these flaws and more, and the resolution was stricken from the record.
The replacement of the HCA was written by an author who probably wouldn't classify himself as being a NatSov. But it still does the job it needs to do magnificently. It allows nations to detain persons in reasonable situations, and still blocks abuse of the system. That law still exists today because it toes the line between respecting sovereignty and dealing with an issue that isn't necessarily of international importance. It is not a purely NatSov solution, but it is a significant improvement and one I support.
So now that you have a handle on what a Natsov is, let's get into a little bit of the whys.
Why join the WA at all?
A fair question. If you respect the national sovereignty of your own nation, it would seem to follow that you'd be unlikely to join the WA at all. But that methodology of thinking would fail to take into account the ideals of National Sovereignty. That is, the belief that the increase of national sovereignty worldwide is a net good. There is no way to combat the effects of WA legislation without actually joining the World Assembly itself. So yes, we join the world assembly to advance our viewpoints and to increase sovereignty for all.
Why shouldn't I support a resolution that increases human rights? Or one that stops human rights abuses?
You SHOULD support resolutions on the issues that are important to you. I know this is strange, and a little counter intuitive from what most people think of as a NatSov standpoint, but it isn't. The WA is capable of doing great harm if legislation is clumsily and recklessly passed, but new resolutions that respect the National Sovereigntist standpoint are inherently better than their alternative. Are we more likely to support a repeal than not? Sure. But I guarantee you'll have some difficulty finding a significant amount of NatSovs who'd support the repeal of a law banning slavery, well crafted laws on genocide, most children's issues, or any other number of issues that are of "international importance".
That's another factor to consider as well. The World Assembly is, for lack of a better process, a way to enforce international treaties on a wide scale. As long as most of the enforcement and definitions are left up to the nations in question (while avoiding creating severe loopholes), an international issue can be dealt with by the WA in a way that doesn't necessarily wreck the sovereignty of its member nations. That is the ideal resolution we work towards.
Why is freedom important for nations?
Because the nation is YOU. In Nationstates you control your nations! If the WA takes power away from you, it has limited the options you have on personal legislation. It is taking freedoms from you as the leader of that nation. The Modern NatSov is about making sure that as little power leaves your hands as possible, while not ignoring substantive issues that may shock the conscience.
Why do gameplayers tend to be NatSov?
A lot of gameplayers don't care much about the World Assembly (and especially not the General Assembly). But I think GPers becoming NatSovs is definitely a trend and one that I welcome. While there are a certain amount of defenders that are active in the GA and aren't NatSov, the vast majority of Gameplayers who do get involved in the GA tend towards the NatSov ideology.
Simply put, a GA ideology about national freedoms rather than worldwide and collective legislation is something of a natural fit for most gameplayers who get involved in the GA.
Why aren't you anti-everything like I thought?
Well. That's an older version of National Sovereignty that doesn't really exist anymore on any significant scale. The modern NatSov does not hate the WA. You'll hear that argument from our opponents on occasion but it's a smokescreen. It's a caricature that may've once been close to accurate, but doesn't tell the whole story. The two authors of this ducment have almost 40 resolutions between them (that's about 15% of all active GA resolutions). So no, we're not about destroying the WA, we're about improving it. We want the institution to do good, just as much as anybody. We just insist it be smarter about doing so.
Conclusion:
So you still wanna be a NatSov? That's good. We are an open ideology, where the only rules are to be smart about legislation, don't be a dick, and engage with our opposition until it's no longer reasonable to do so. If you have an idea for a resolution there is almost certainly a way to go about it that respects the sovereignty of almost twenty thousand nations in the WA and remains within the 3500 character limit. Trust us on that.
Thanks for reading!
Here's a couple of guides to help you get started on passing NatSov Legislation, namely Repeals and Blockers:
Why repeal?
Improving the world, one blocker at a time
And a few more on the concepts of NatSov:
Will the real 'IntFed' please stand up?
FAQs from HotRodia from the UN Days
Authors:
Foreign Affairs Minister and Vice Delegate of Osiris: The Dourian Embassy.
Delegate of Europeia: Mousebumples.
Supporters:
Delegate of Osiris: Cormac A Stark.
Delegate of Balder: Solorni.
Delegate of Monkey Island: Ainocra.
Founder of Antarctic Oasis: Omigodtheykilledkenny.
