(Former) Fifth Security Council

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri May 31, 2013 10:48 pm

WORLD ALLIANCE SECURITY COUNCIL



The Security Council is the executive & legislative arm of the WA Government.
It's powers, functions & responsibilities are governed by the WA Constitution.

The seat of the Security Council is at the Peace Palace in Moscow, Eurussia.


Last edited by Great Eurussia on Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Fri May 31, 2013 10:50 pm

FIFTH SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS



Term of Office : June 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013

President : New Zealand

Members : Novo Canuckia, HPS, Aloia, Marquette, Freedom Planita 2, Eurussia
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Vendoland on Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:22 am

What does the Security Council think about adding a 'Future Tech' and/or a 'FT:FTL' tag to the region? Judging by the RP and the numerous space colonies, I think it's safe to say the decision has been made for future tech RP. The tag(s) would advertise that fact, which could attract prospective members.

How does that sound to everyone?
avatar
Vendoland
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 54
Join date : 2013-02-06

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vendoland

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:45 am

I think thats a great idea.
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:41 pm

@Vendoland, New Zealand, I have no opposition to that :-D
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Vendoland on Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:56 pm

Excellent. Thank you for taking care of that, Eurussia.

On to other business. I am proposing a constitutional amendment. Specifically, it would change Article V, Section II (the outright prohibition of war) to something like this:

No member state shall engage in war unless all parties consent to it

This way, war is only valid if both sides agree to it. If one nation unilaterally declares war on another that doesn't consent, the war is illegal and subject to prosecution.

If that doesn't work, I say Article V, Section II should be abolished completely.
avatar
Vendoland
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 54
Join date : 2013-02-06

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vendoland

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:53 pm

@Vendoland, I am in favor of abolishing it completely, it's totally useless. Besides, there is a provision in Article 4, recognizing the right to self defense. I guess it explains itself. Also, I would also like to push an amendment increasing the number of nations in the Security Council on a ratio basis. What do you think?
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Arveyres on Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:02 am

We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

But, we also agree that the ratio for the number of nations to the Security Council should be more like the real United Nations Security Council ratio.
avatar
Arveyres
Potential World Power

Posts : 637
Join date : 2013-02-09
Age : 18
Location : Saint Paul, MN, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=holy_patrician_states

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Vendoland on Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:36 am

Holy Patrician States wrote:We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

I disagree. If the region ignores the law and continues with war in spite of it, it still means that the region is breaking the law. Amending or abolishing it entirely would mean there would be fewer lawbreakers.
avatar
Vendoland
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 54
Join date : 2013-02-06

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vendoland

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Aloia on Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:37 am

Vendoland wrote:
Holy Patrician States wrote:We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

I disagree. If the region ignores the law and continues with war in spite of it, it still means that the region is breaking the law. Amending or abolishing it entirely would mean there would be fewer lawbreakers.

I agree with you, Vendoland. If we this amendment had already been in place, we could have completely avoided the Great War by ignoring the UCPP's declarations of war.
avatar
Aloia
Potential World Power

Posts : 536
Join date : 2013-02-22
Location : Kansas, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=aloia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:12 am

I think we should void the clause.
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Novo Canuckia on Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:53 pm

New-Zealand wrote:I think we should void the clause.

Seconded.

This particular law has never once been upheld, nor does it serve any logical purpose at this time.
avatar
Novo Canuckia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 68
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Vendoland on Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:26 am

Perhaps someone on the Security Council would like to start a Constitutional Convention to amend or abolish the aforementioned section?
avatar
Vendoland
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 54
Join date : 2013-02-06

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vendoland

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:22 am

It can be done via unanimous SC vote
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Aloia on Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:43 am

I believe there are more things we need to discuss regarding the constitution, however, than can be done through unanimous votes. We need to decide whether to change the SC's size so it is in a decent ratio with the nations of the World Alliance and then decide what ratio to change it to. I think a constitutional conference would be appropriate.
avatar
Aloia
Potential World Power

Posts : 536
Join date : 2013-02-22
Location : Kansas, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=aloia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:02 pm

1 SC member for every 10 region members?




Perhaps 1 SC member for every 15 region members?
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Kulon Bangsa on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:04 pm

Or perhaps 1 for every 5. We need to be represented!
avatar
Kulon Bangsa
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 72
Join date : 2013-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:11 pm

Naujoji America wrote:Or perhaps 1 for every 5. We need to be represented!

yea... 27 SC members? One for every 15 would give us 9 SC members. One for every 10 would give us 13 SC members. I think we should go for 1:15 ratio, or 1:12 or something.
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Kulon Bangsa on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:19 pm

we need eleven members... 10 is a reasonable # + 1 swing vote
avatar
Kulon Bangsa
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 72
Join date : 2013-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:22 pm

Naujoji America wrote:we need eleven members... 10 is a reasonable # + 1 swing vote

The ratio "1:20" is the most convenient and reasonable...
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Novo Canuckia on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:36 pm

Please keep in mind that we only have 10-20 active members involved in regional politics and roleplay at any given time, so to have up to or over half of them members of the regional government is illogical unless we intend to adopt a United Nations style system of governance, as was proposed (and eventually rejected) when initial plans for the constitution were being drafted.
avatar
Novo Canuckia
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 68
Join date : 2013-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:41 pm

Novo Canuckia wrote:Please keep in mind that we only have 10-20 active members involved in regional politics and roleplay at any given time, so to have up to or over half of them members of the regional government is illogical unless we intend to adopt a United Nations style system of governance, as was proposed (and eventually rejected) when initial plans for the constitution were being drafted.

Adopting a UN Style of governance and following the UN General Assembly format would be disastrous for the World Alliance as no laws will surely pass.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  New-Zealand on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:44 pm

1:15 would be a good ratio... perhaps 1:17?
avatar
New-Zealand
Emerging Power

Posts : 973
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : New Zealand

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new-zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Kulon Bangsa on Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:45 pm

1:16?
avatar
Kulon Bangsa
Emerging Powerbroker

Posts : 72
Join date : 2013-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Europe and Asia on Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:40 pm

Eurussia is saying that the more people we have, the more bureaucracy we will have. Less is better, in this case.
avatar
Europe and Asia
Emerging Power

Posts : 881
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 42
Location : Ann Arbor, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: (Former) Fifth Security Council

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum