Removal of Security Council

H

Heft

TNPer
Blue indicating addition, red strikethroughs indicating removal.

Art II Sec 4:
D - Provisions for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions may provide for approval of deployments by the Security Council in appropriate circumstances as provided by law.
Click to expand...
Art III Sec 1:
A - Procedures for the election of the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other Ministers of the Cabinet, and the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council shall be as provided by this Constitution and by law in The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Elections and referendums shall take place on The North Pacific Regional off-site forum. Elections for the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other elected Cabinet Ministers, and the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council, shall be held every three calendar months in the months of February, May, August, and November. Voting shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the first day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the seventh day of the designated month. Voting in any necessary runoff election shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the tenth day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the sixteenth day of the designated month. Nations take office when a certificate of results of an election are published.
.
.
.
F - The quorum requirement for Regional Assembly members in referenda on motions to approve, ratify or confirm actions, nominations or appointments, and on bills to enact laws, do not apply to the elections of the UN Delegate, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers, or the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council for a full term, or for any necessary runoff elections.
Click to expand...
Art III Sec 2.1:
F - At all times during the term of office, the Vice Delegate shall have the second greatest number of endorsements in the Region which shall be exceeded only by the number of endorsements held by the Delegate. The Vice Delegate may be authorized, by a vote of the Security Council on grounds of regional securitypermission of the Cabinet, to temporarily assume the Delegacy under NationStates procedures whenever the Delegate may be unable to act or is not recognized within NationStates as the UN Member with the greatest number of endorsements within the Region or for other similar reasons of regional security. Upon the subsequent formal posted declaration of the Delegate that he or she is able to again act as Delegate of the Region within NationStates, the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall take any necessary action to cause the transfer of the Delegacy back to the elected Delegate.
Click to expand...

In addition the entirety of Article Four, Section Nine shall be removed.

Art IV Sec 9:
Section 9. Security Council.

A - The Regional Assembly shall elect a Security Council. The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council. The Council shall have authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments as are specified in this Constitution and The North Pacific Legal Code. Any action by the Council does not supercede any requirement for approval by a referendum within the Regional Assembly, but serves as approval for action prior to such a referendum.
B - The Security Council shall be composed of not fewer than five members of the Regional Assembly, elected for three month terms at the same time as the Cabinet, Speaker, and the UN Delegate. The total number of Council members shall be determined by law, but shall not be less than five nor more than that whole number which equals ten percent of the total number of Regional Assembly Members at the time the nomination period for elections commence. The members of the Council shall be elected by plurality vote of the Regional Assembly in the manner prescribed by law.
C - Regional Assembly Members elected to serve on the Security Council shall arrange their affairs during their term of office on the Council so that they may participate in any matter brought to the Council upon notice not to exceed 24 hours. A quorum for the actions of the Security Council shall be not fewer than three Regional Assembly members as determined by law. The Speaker shall not have a vote in Security Council matters except in the case of a tie, but the Speaker shall count to the establishment of a quorum for a particular matter.
Click to expand...
 
The Security Council, while well-intended, is not necessary, and the region does not have the membership to sustain it. Fears of an out-of-control Executive are unfounded, as any Minister that abuses their power can simply be removed. The only member of the Executive we cannot control is the delegate, and this does not give the delegate any more power than they already had.
 
We all know what the Security Council is supposed to do but none can actually see what they actually do because of the sensitivity of the information they deal with. Perhaps clarification or examples from actual SC members may be of service?
 
If we have a security counsil, what the hell is the Minister of Defense for? Shouldn't this be their job? How about we have a counsil telling the delegate which letters look nice in the wfe?
 
The Security Council was originally meant to provide another check on the power of the Cabinet, I believe. Given how things have played out since its creation, the likelihood of an out-of-control Cabinet (next to none), and the power to impeach or simply not vote for someone again, I feel we can safely say that the Security Council is not needed, and was more a product of unwarranted fear of a strong Executive than anything.
 
However, if there is no SC, the powers of the government will effective be unchecked (OK I know the fact that government members can also be SC kind of screws with that). If you rely on members of the government to decide on security matters behind closed doors, they can effectively do whatever they want, without there being any authority to stop them. And yes fears of an out of control exectutive might be unfounded now, but that doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

I see nothing but destabilisation to come from this...
 
I'm tempted to agree with Nam here..

The reason we haven't "seen much" of the SC is not because they are not doing anything, but rather because we haven't seen many regional emergencies lately, and that of course is a good thing.

I think we need the SC to say "hey hold on a second, let's make sure this action is warranted". If we don't have the SC, I guarantee that the only way that a grievance can be corrected is through a lawsuit. For example, person X is wrongly accused of some security issue; there is no SC to review it so the Minister imposes the punishment. Person X sues and then that becomes a litigious mess.

Furthermore, as Chief Justice Byard just pointed out recently, the SC has the power to view evidence that may be otherwise "under seal" if it pertains to a matter at hand. That means you're going to have RA members looking at even "secret" evidence to decide whether an issue is really an issue. I think that's what we want. I'd like to point out that without an SC, anyone can use "secret evidence" as an excuse for anything, since no one can see it at the time. The SC is the only overview body that we have in order to look into these matters.
 
Art V Sec 8:
Section 8. Right to Judicial Review.

A - Any nation may request the Court to review any statute, law, or other government action to determine whether that action, statute, or law is in conformity with or is in violation of a provision of this Constitution.
B- The Court may grant such a remedy as it determines to be appropriate in the circumstances.
C - In any such proceeding, the Court shall give notice to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of the request for judicial review, and may permit the Regional Government or other parties to intervene in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of the requested judicial review.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a wrongful act on the part of the Cabinet would have to result in a litigious mess. If a nation is wrongly accused of being a security threat and action taken against them, they can simply request the Court to review the decision. The Court could then decide whether the actions were warranted, and, if they were not, the Court could demand that the action be undone (at least as much as an action can be undone). The Court would have to power to review any "secret evidence".

In either case, I would like to think that we are capable of actually trusting our elected officials to do their jobs. If we can't trust them to make simple calls on the security of the region, then it seems to solution would be to get new leaders, not prop up a committee to watch over them. Also, as someone pointed out above, the Security Council has never been totally independent of the Cabinet. There have always been numerous Ministers serving as Councillors.
 
To take the last point first --

I previously suggested and pushed for a piece of legislation that would bar any Ministers from sitting on the SC because I felt it to be a possible conflict of interest. However, as many will recall, that effort got nowhere.. If that really is a problem, I'd rather see that done than a complete abolishment of the SC.


The Court could decide those questions, yes, but the Court is only three people and if someone else can look into those questions, that's generally a better idea because we don't want the Court passing judgment on every single little thing with regards to how the government functions.

Thirdly, trusting an elected official does not mean we give them power to do what they want. That is only one step removed in my view from suggesting we just have one elected official and nothing else. When I cast my vote for someone, I think that they'll do a good job on the issues -- trust shouldn't be the deciding factor because trust is an extremely intangible quantity. What people SHOULD trust is the Constitution, not any candidate in any campaign. Even if you trust someone when you elect them, this does not mean you must always trust them if they do bad things.
 
If they do bad things, than remove them. If they do bad things, do not vote for them again. There are eight members of the Cabinet. If all eightof the elected Ministers conspire to do something wrong (or even enough of them to pull off an action that would require SC intervention) than there is a larger problem. Excess bureaucracy will not prevent a corrupt Cabinet. Besides, it is just as possible for the Security Council to be corrupt as well.

edit: seven =/= eight
 
Given how things have played out since its creation, the likelihood of an out-of-control Cabinet (next to none)
Click to expand...


MAybe it seems that way because there is another check? I like checks and balances...though 7 members might be a bit too much.
 
I am a member of the Security Council and stand ready to perform my duties should the need arise. Just because things are quiet right now doesn't mean the SC serves no function. The SC has made decisions regarding regional security and Delegate actions in the past, and will most likely (though we don't wish it) make decisions and advisements in the future. Taking the SC away would remove a check on the Delegate and that is something I will never be comfortable with.
 
I think that dispensing with the SC is not a good idea.

I think strengthening the means to authorize a delegate to act in the event that the SC doesn't act fast enough might be a better idea.
 
I, for one, would not advocate the dismemberment of the SC.

For one, the Constitution specifically requires SC members to be available and active. The upshot is that, regardless of what may arise in the region, there is a body of trusted and available* persons ready to countersign the emergency actions of the Delegate. We have been blessed so far with good and wise delegates. However, I would think, given TNP's history, that additional checks upon the delegate would be looked upon as a boon.

Besides, who's to say that the SC could not serve as that last safety valve vs. a rogue delegate, by authorizing the VD to overtake, or authorizing the summoning of support to remove a rogue? Hell, look at the discussions on every other legislative act. Is there any reasonable expectation that the RA could get a resolution to do such in order before we find ourselves rooming with Kandarin whilst 1337 haX0rz is running our home?

What I don't really see here is a drawback to the SC that would justify its eradication, other than "OMGZ< more Constitution! Reading is hard!" Besides, this is the only position, besides PM, where I can remember more candidates than openings in in all of the elections so far. Personally, I take that to mean a definitive interest in its role and continuation by the electorate.


* While I can't be arsed to find and verify it, on the last couple of SC approvals, I seem to recall us hitting quorum within hours of the request.



Incidentally, this was supposed to be like 5-6 sentences tops. I'm turning into Grosse, and I blame the powdered wig.
 
I think the Security Council is a vital part of the region. We don't see much of what goes on, because much of it (when there is a regional emergency) is behind-the-scenes.

When the delegacy is in danger, the Security Council is there to quickly investigate and authorize the delegate to act. This adds a check on the delegate so he/she doesn't eject anyone they please, while it still enables the region to have an elected body that is ready to act ASAP when there is a regional problem.
 
Interesting.

Whilst I have always been an advocate for a smaller constitution and a smaller government, I fail to see any convincing reasons as to why the security council /should/ be removed.

They (we) serve our purpose as elected line of security before the delegate. The fact that we are quiet is not indicitive of our lack of purpose, but more that the region has very few actual emergencys.

Every real life government has councils and plans for such emergencies and it is very rare for them to be disbanded or ignored simply because they have not faced such an event yet. We are here in the event of a security risk, not to prevent them.
 
So what has the Security Council done?! Ever?!

I vaguely recall them checking endorsement numbers once when someone else handed them a list and pointed out a few possible threats as endotarts!! Other than that I haven't seen much from them!!

Personally, I don't care if we have a Security Council or not!! If just trying to understand exactly what it is they are supposed to be doing for the region other than serve as some sort of judgement committee with regards to the conduct of the Delegate and Cabinet!!

To me, it seems like a throwback to paranoia of times past!!

We do have a Cabinet of 8 plus the RA to pass and scrutinse what the government or individuals within the government are doing so perhaps we do not really need another bureaucratic body serving no real new purpose in the region!! It is not like they are a neutral party as the members of the Security Council could be (and often are) members of Cabinet also!! So, we have a body overseeing another body in which there is shared membership!! Seems redundant to me when you look at it!!

Anyway, as I said, couldn't care less really!!
 
Cabinets have been dismissed, elected members have been booted, personal rivalries have torn asunder common ideals; it doesn't hurt to have it since they don't dilute public will and it only hurts later on not to have it. I'm for the continuation of the Security Council.
 
Poltsamaa:
So what has the Security Council done?! Ever?!
Click to expand...
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has the Security Council ever done for us?

:P
 
I sought the counsel of the Security Council a number of times when I was Delegate, especially when a security concern had been brought to my attention, or i was concerned about ane endotart or something.

I must have PMd them about six times during my delegacy. Two or three times a member of the SC also contacted me.

However, my delegacy was during a more volatile period in regional life, when I faced two (at least) unendorsement campaigns and a couple of serious bids by folks (sometimes the same folks) to endotart to the delegacy. All of these threats and minor annoyances were dealt with with the help of the SC.

We are in slightly quieter times now, but who is to say that the threat level will not increase again?

My take on it is this: We elect people into the cabinet and into the SC looking for different skills and experiences. I would not expect, say, the Minister of Arts and Entertainment or Minster of Culture and Education to be able to give sound advice on regional security. For that I would go to the SC.
 
Heft:
If they do bad things, than remove them. If they do bad things, do not vote for them again. There are eight members of the Cabinet. If all eightof the elected Ministers conspire to do something wrong (or even enough of them to pull off an action that would require SC intervention) than there is a larger problem. Excess bureaucracy will not prevent a corrupt Cabinet. Besides, it is just as possible for the Security Council to be corrupt as well.

edit: seven =/= eight
Click to expand...
Corruption is inevitable at some point in all freely elected forms of government purely because of human nature.

But that doesn't mean we shuoldn't have any anti-corruption laws either.
 
We could turn the security council into an 'on/off' duty group. That is, we have a number of SC members of which a portion of which is needed to act. So, if you have 7 members, you only need the majority of 5 to act.

The other idea is to combine the SC function with the ministry of defense. You allow the Delegate to act swiftly in an emergency with or upon advice of the MoD and then require the RA to approve/deny/autorize the action by simple plurality of total votes after or before the fact and within 24/48 hours.
 
The Sc is designed in the constitution as a first response mechanism that is available to the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, and the other Ministers in the Cabinet as the representatives pf the RA membership.

Between the quorum requirement and the availability of service, that should make it possible for the SC to act on a matter within 24 hours either by IRC or its private meeting forum.

There was one instance in the last term when the SC acted within 12 hours, with a minimum of three members participating in the absence of the Speaker.

So the system does work as it is currently designed to do. The question is whether it has failed to act on a potential security issue within 24 hours, and I cannot think of an instance where that has been the case. And since I'm the only member who has continuously served as a elected Security Council member from the beginning, I think I am in a position to point the absence of any failure to act on the part of the SC.
 
With the new game mechanics, we should be removing as many barriers between the delegate's ability to act quickly and decisively as possible without making rogue delegates protected by law.
 
Sine cure positions are nice to have especially since they occasionally serve a real purpose. I think it should be kept.



R
 
Who provides the checks on the SC?!

Also, Flem, it was funny because you said people elect nations into Cabinet based on skills and experience!! And you posted it as if you actually believed it!! :rofl:
 
If I may add my two cents, I believe that this probably should be got rid of. As to be honest, it no longer for me seems to be filling its purpose.
 
See the main forum for a formal discussion.

(Yes, we still ahve to follow the rules and can't go immediately to a vote).

My computer was on the fritz for most of this week. Apologies for not moving this sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top