The Unrepresented United Nations (UUN) is an intergovernmental organisation whose fundamental objective is to assist and represent the nations and peoples that are unrepresented or badly represented so that they can express their positions in the appropriate forums and obtain their recognition, keep the peace and international security and guarantee self-determination of the peoples.
With this purpose the Unrepresented United Nations (UUN) developed efficient collective policies for preventing and eliminating threats to the peace, and to suppress acts of aggression or other violations of the peace; in the interest of achieving the adjustment or settlement of controversies or international situations that are capable of leading to violations of the peace and the self-determination of the peoples, through peaceful means and in accordance with the principles of justice and international law.
In order to reach this objective the Unrepresented United Nations (UUN) will encourage friendly relations between the nations and peoples, based on respecting the principle of equality of the rights and self-determination of the peoples.
Therefore, with this, the Unrepresented United Nations (UUN) adopted the necessary measures to strengthen universal peace, promote international cooperation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature, and in the development and stimulus of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of everyone, without making distinctions for reasons of race, sex, language or religion; and to serve as a center for reconciling the efforts of the Nations to reach these common intentions.
Imperialism is the modern political doctrine that justifies the domination of a people or State over others; as a rule through distinct types of colonialism, by the way of economic exploitation, strategic military presence, cultural subordination or other variants. Although closely related, the terms Imperialism and Colonialism are not strictly synonymous; however, they coincide in one concept: that of constituting a modern political doctrine.
The world knew empires during Ancient History, but the use of the term ‘Imperialism’ is associated with the European expansion beginning in the era of the discoveries, in the XV century and lasting during the Modern Age and the Contemporary Age until the decolonization process after the Second World War.
To be specific, the expression Era of Imperialism followed Colonialism, associated with this modern political doctrine and used by historians, refers to the period from 1871 to 1919 in which a real race was produced to construct colonial empires, mainly with the so-called division of Africa, where Colonialism split up almost the entire dark continent. Two of the most important documents that focused on the concept referred to this period: Imperialism, a Study by Hobson, and Imperialism, a Highest Stage of Capitalism, by Lenin.
The Marxist perspective essentially understands Imperialism not as a form of political domination, but as an international mechanism for dividing capital and work, for which the possession of capital, management, the highest qualified work and major part of the consumption are concentrated in the most economically and industrially developed countries, while the countries that provide the work of a lesser qualification and natural resources, suffer an unequal exchange that leads to exploitation and impoverishment, the nucleus of this modern political doctrine.
The nomenclature North-South is also employed these days in political science to condemn the way Imperialism interacts unfavorably with underdeveloped nations.
Underrepresented Nations are those Nations that for political, geographical or historical reasons haven’t achieved a full representation on an international, especially by organisations such as the United Nations.
In the broad sense, the concept of Nation is used with varied meanings, as for example country, territory or its inhabitants, ethnicity and people.
An underrepresented Nation lacks the support that is necessary to participate in diplomatic measures and to improve the image of its Nation. That’s why the Unrepresented United Nations (UUN) offers support to the underrepresented Nations.
A badly represented Nation is that which lacks representation at an international level or which is badly represented by those international organisations, such as the United Nations, which should offer full support to their geopolitical demands.
A badly represented Nation could also be defined as an underrepresented Nation.
See the video:
The basic human rights are freedoms, faculties, institutions, or claims related to the primary or basic goods belonging to any person, for the simple fact of having a human condition, for guaranteeing a decent life, without distinction of race, color, sex, language, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion or of any other nature as, for example, their national or social origin, economic position, birth or any other condition.
According to the authors of legal writs, Human Rights are independent or not exclusively dependent on existing legal systems, because they are considered the source of Law; however, from a positive legal point of view, the truth is that only countries that have signed the International Agreements on Human Rights, which is to say, the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights (IACPR), the International Agreement for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IAESCR), and their Protocols – the International Charter for Human Rights – are required to respect their legal status.
So, for example, in relation to the death penalty, contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Second Optional Protocol of the International Agreement on Civil and political Rights, intended to abolish the death penalty, was not signed by countries like the People’s Republic of China, Iran, the United States, Vietnam, Japan, India and Guatemala.
From a more relational legal point of view, the Human Rights have been defined as the conditions that favor the creation of a juridical relationship between the person and society, which allows persons to be juridical entities, so that they are able to identify with themselves and with others.
Today, there are 49 countries with more than 600 million inhabitants, each one qualified by the United Nations Organization (UN) as a less advanced country (LAC), but better known as less developed countries (LDC).
Every three years the list of less developed countries(LDC) or less advanced countries (LAC) is revised by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) measured by the following criteria: Low income, measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita; weak human resources, measured by a composite index (Increased physical Quality of Life Index), based on indicators of life expectancy at birth, calorie consumption per capita, combined registration for primary and secondary schools and adult literacy; and low level of economic diversification, measured by the composite index (Economic Diversification Index), based on the manufacturing section in the GDP, the proportion of the population active in industry, the annual commercial energy consumption per capita and the index of the concentration of merchandise exportation of the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference of Trade and Development).
A country will be included in the list of less developed countries (LDC) or less advanced countries (LAC) if it complies with all three criteria of the limits for inclusion. On the other hand, if a country complies with two out of three of the criteria for the limits of exclusion, it can be authorized to be excluded from the list. A low income figures at 800 dollars or less per capita.
The efforts made between 1960 and 1990 resulted in the identification of a category of the poorest and structurally weaker countries, that is, not included as less developed countries (LDC) or less advanced countries (LAC), and the acceptance by the international community of these poorest and structurally weaker countries, for example Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Solomon Islands and others, deserve special and concrete attention.
In Political Science and International Law, the term self-determination of the Peoples indicates the rights of the Peoples to decide freely and for themselves the form of government by which they will be ruled, as well as determining to what state entity they will belong and, in the last analysis, to be constituted, if they so desire, as an independent national State. This latter aspect of the principle of self-determination of the Peoples, very much related to the concept of nationalism and with forming a national State, is still today the one most subject to debate.
A nation usually shares the same language, history, culture and common religion, but the formation of a national State requires the recognition of a territory in which the people resides and the formation of a government that administers this territory. By definition, the self-determination of the Peoples, as being the enhancer of the birth of a new national State, implies the resulting fragmentation of another that already exists, for which the claim for self-determination is usually problematic or traumatic. If not, it’s good to remember that one of the factors that triggered World War I were the pro-independence aspirations of Balkan peoples.
At the end of the conflict, the subsequent Treaty of Versailles – whose main agreements were inspired by the American President Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points – was clear in admitting the right to Self-determination of the peoples, a tendency even more consolidated after the end of World War II, when the United Nations Organisation (UN), its own foundational Charter, recognized the right of the peoples to their free determination (Articles 1 and 55).
A Micronation is an entity that aspires to become a nation or an independent state which is lacking recognition from the world’s governments or by international organizations; these differ from self-determination movements or small states with limited recognition or independent de Facto states which have some type of recognition.
These nations exist on Internet or in small physical spaces. The Micronations are formed by small groups of people or even by a single small family. Unlike imaginary countries and other social groups (like eco-villages, clans or sects), these express the fervent desire for recognition of the sovereignty of their physical territory.
Here is an example of Micronation: the Kingdom of New Eden. The Kingdom of New Eden is a cybernation created Wednesday, January 9, 2008 and officially inaugurated two days later. The Kingdom of New Eden is presently developed as a Forum that is qualified to be realistic and to allow modification by its citizens. The government of the Kingdom of New Eden is a Parliamentary Monarchy; the King is Roderick I who is temporarily also the president f the government.
At present, this Micronation is undertaking a campaign to attract colonists, in order to strengthen the Digital State, fill the governmental quarries and conquer the immense virtual territories. The Kingdom of New Eden has serious aspirations of becoming a developed cybernation, where liberty and equality are guaranteed. This Micronation has aspirations for neither a physical territory, nor a economy, and so there are no thoughts of requesting money demanding that the citizens pay taxes; it only needs their participation in governmental affairs, according to how much available time they have, and that they respect the laws.
A de Facto State or a factual State is in fact that which, even if in practice it acts as such, is not officially recognized by any rule of rights. There are various reasons for which a de Facto State exists: for example, the State that is formed after having taken power through a coup d’état. In ta his case, for a brief period, and until a new constitution has been approved, an unofficial State system takes the reins of the de Facto State.
Another sense of the term is that which designates a person who exercises full power of control after a coup d’état even if it doesn’t officially have a formal title of State. The term de Facto State or factual State is indeed used for designating those States that are not disciplined by a legitimate constitutional regulation, meaning those States that arise as a result of a break from the constitutional order, either by a coup d’état or revolution or any other de Facto process, on the edge or in violation of the legal system.
The characteristics of a de Facto State are:
1) Total or partial break from the existing order or the institution of a new order based on political, economic or ethnic motives;
2) The generation of norms or rules for general observation with simple governmental decrees;
3) the concentration of political power and the exercise of public functions.
In general terms a People is designated as a group of people that makes up a Nation, although the same term is also usually used to name those who make up only a part of a country, for example like a locality or region situated outside of the big cities. In this case the most useful qualifier would be to call it rural zone, even though in numerous parts of the world they are known as Peoples.
Likewise, in many opportunities the word People is used for ethnic characterizations, above all in those contexts where they use the type of expressions such as primitive, ancient or indigenous peoples. On the other hand, the word People designates a group of persons that integrate the State, where there are no privileges based on racial, sexual, religious, or economic or social status.
Currently, the majority of the national constitutions of different countries around the world accept the word People as a special interest and significance, linked to a group of persons that compose a Nation.
For example, the national Constitutions of the United States, Argentina, Spain and Colombia – to name just a few – reveal that the word People occupies a special and distinguished place as a consequence of how the word expresses the subject of its sovereignty. The word People, according to political theory and constitutional law, also becomes subject of national sovereignty, understood as popular sovereignty.
An unrecognised or unrepresented Nation is that territory whose sovereignty isn’t internationally recognised in spite of being administered either partially or fully by an organisation, usually autonomous in some aspects.
Although the concept of an unrecognised Nation dates back to the XIX century, it wasn’t until the sixties of the last century that it began to gain strength, to the extreme that these days there are two theories in circulation on recognising a Nation’s sovereignty: the declarative and the foundational. For example, at present the United Nations Organisation (UN) only recognises 193 nations, even though today there many others that are unrecognised by the majority of the world’s States.
The first 14 years of the third millennium of our era have gone by, and the concept of unrecognised or unrepresented Nations must give way to a new pledge: the foundation of an organisation called the Unrepresented United Nations (UUN), under the fundamental precepts for which human beings must work if they aspire to live in a world of justice, peace and respect.
On September 13, 2007, the General Assembly of the Nations (UN) approved – with 143 votes in favor, 4 contrary and 11 abstentions – the Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, which proclaims the collective and individual rights of the 370 million natives around the world, making a call to maintaining and strengthening their cultural identities, emphasizing their right to access development on the basis of their personal needs and aspirations.
The approval of the United Nations (UN) of the Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was the result of a quarter of a century’s negotiations on the rights of the indigenous peoples to protect their lands and resources and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.
The Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples points out in Article 36.1 that the indigenous peoples, especially those that are divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop relations, contacts and cooperation, including their spiritual, cultural, political and economic activities and social purposes, with other members of other peoples across borders. Paragraph 2 states that the States, in cooperation with the indigenous peoples, must take effective measures for facilitating the exercise of and ensuring the implementation of their rights, while Article 37.1 points out that the indigenous peoples have the right to be recognized, respected, and included in treaties, agreements and the other constructive agreements reached with the States so that their successors honor and respect the treaties, agreements and other constructive orders.
Exactly one year later, in the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, claimed, in the name of the of the indigenous peoples of the world, his approval of the Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples in that it will mean” advancing toward establishing a culture of life and not of war,” he said.
“The Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples is the right to self-determination, the right to live together, collectively, to live in solidarity, in reciprocity and, basically, the right to live in brotherhood,” Evo Morales remarked.
To underline the native concept of life, Evo Morales reminds us that “there are regions in communities where there is no private property, there is collective property; the indigenous people just want to live well, not better: living better is to exploit, to plunder, to steal, but to live well is to live in brotherhood.”
Further ahead, Evo Morales emphasized that the indigenous and poor peoples are “for the culture of life and not the culture of war,” and assures that this millennium must be for defending life and saving humanity.