Security Council Reform (Winter 2013)

Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe

TNPer
The North Pacific Legal Code: Chapter 5:
Section 5.3: Enforcement
11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
12. The Vice Delegate must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
13. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
17. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter in the absence of the Vice Delegate.
18. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.
19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
Click to expand...
I believe this section requires further reform, specifically on the matter of removal and suspension of members, and the warning required. This was to be the focus of the Fall 2013 SC Reform that I started with Grosseschnauzer but it didn't happen.

Under the current law there are four legally sanctioned routes for a member to be removed:
  • Nation CTEs (5.3.12)
  • Nation leaves TNP (5.3.12)
  • Nation drops WA without NPA authorization (5.3.12)
  • Nation is recognized by the RA to be a security risk (5.3.15)
There following exit routes are not covered by chapter 5:
  • Nation fails to log on to the forum for 2 weeks so office is 'abandoned' (4.2.7)
  • Nation is constitutionally required to be in the RA and is removed from the RA (Constitution)
  • Nation fails to meet endorsement requirement (5.3.11)
  • Nation fails to meet influence requirement (5.3.11)
  • Nation brings the Security Council into disrepute
  • Nation fails to co-operate with the other members of the SC
  • Nation is actually recalled by the RA (BoR)
  • Nation resigns from the SC
Now these are eight potential ways for a member to be removed, and our chapter on SC Law makes no provision for them to be removed for those reasons, only the four reasons outlined above.

What I propose is we work through this list and decide should it be (a) illegal or (b) legal for the Vice Delegate to remove them for said reason. I honestly believe that it's unfair to be removed for reasons that are excluded from the law that is supposed to cover the reasons of removing members.

The first two on my list are, I believe, sensible reasons to have someone removed, however, excluding these reasons from the chapter makes them appear dubious. Are they covered by clause 11? If so, it implies they should only be warned and then suspended, not removed.

The second two obviously fall under clause 11, but in that case they must be warned and then suspended, not removed. If removal is to be an option, the law must be modified.

The last four on the list are common sense reasons but not covered by clause 11 by any reading of the law. If you stretch interpretation you could make some of them fit the requirement for clause 15, but that is a convoluted way to remove someone. Do the RA agree these three are good reasons to remove? If so, they must be included in the law so that the Vice Delegate is not viewed to be acting improperly.

Once these questions are answered, we can remove the sanity clause. The sanity clause is actually useless because we have already seen, it doesn't prevent trouble when members are removed for reasons not specified in SC Law.
 
SillyString:
SC members are not required to be members of the RA.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I thought. I spoke to McMasterdonia on skype and he did not seem to know that.

Edit: You are right of course that the constitution doesn't currently require RA membership, but the constitution may one day be reformed or reverted, so I think it would still be worth answering whether removing a member on constitutional grounds is supposed to be legal or illegal. If legal, it should be in this chapter.

Do you disagree?
 
To reduce ambiguity.

On the other hand, maybe that's a mad thing so suggest and I should feel bad?

We can shelve this now and save some time.

I did believe what I was trying to achieve here, but if nobody agrees with me then maybe I am wrong.
 
I sometimes say things without fully understanding how people will interpret them and react to them on an emotional and a rational level.

So I'm thinking, hey, this was a problem a while ago and still is a mess that we ought to sort out. Whereas everyone else is thinking this guy is a total douche for wasting our time with "security council reform" what is his problem?
 
With the changes made in several recently laws that remove RA membership as a condition of SC membership, and which addressed the abnormality of what were offices that required RA membership under that recent court decision, we've dealt with one of the primary issues that were of concern.
The changes in in-game influence and their impact on SC membership requirements has been initially addressed but monitoring will be required for the next several months.
The one element that may need clarity is the "warning-suspension-reinstatement" process and the less frequent "warning-removal-readmission" process. That might require clarifying legislation to reduce any ambiguity or uncertainty. We may need to ask the current members of the SC for their input on these two processes, but in the past, the preference has been to use suspension rather than removal in cases of inactivity (or a nation CTE'd status) and removal readmission should be used in more specific limited circumstances. I haven't spent much time thinking about this because of the other legislation that moved forward, but this area I described is probably the only area that may need to be addressed further. I want to keep the process of reactivation or reinstatement as simple as possible since if a nation has already been proved worthy of SC membership by the RA and the SC, it shouldn't be necessary to repeat it when there's been a period of inactivity and that nation wishes to resume active status with the SC.
 
Chasmanthe:
I sometimes say things without fully understanding how people will interpret them and react to them on an emotional and a rational level.

So I'm thinking, hey, this was a problem a while ago and still is a mess that we ought to sort out. Whereas everyone else is thinking this guy is a total douche for wasting our time with "security council reform" what is his problem?
Click to expand...
You're being awfully sensitive,Chasmanthe... :P

If you believe in your ideas then stand up for them, don't hide behind sarcasm and defeatism when they are questioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top