[Proposal] Ilian Memorandum on AoN Charter

Subject~Clarification of Article 3
From~Chairman el Tretch of the Itrean League of Ilia
To~National Delegations of the Association of Nations

Dear esteemed colleagues of the AoN. I am writing to you to tell you of the opinion that the Prime Minister of the League has ordered my office to present to this body. It is of the opinion of our politicians and officials that the charter of this body is lacking in very substantial ways, it lacks terms for the Council of Nation, and even the the Secretary-General creating a near monopoly on power, lacking even a clarification for how to expand the council despite expanding it being part of the charter itself.

Though due to the large change that we are proposing we will be splitting our proposal into two separate non-competing proposals to help separate the non-vital parts from the more important amendments. Below you will find attached the two proposals with additions highlighted in green and any removals stroked out in red.

---

"I believe there are conflicting dates, in 3.1, you propose that CoN members shall resign after four months (OOC) with the Secretary General, but meanwhile in 6.1 the date of the Secretary-General's term ending does not coincide with the previous date. I must have either misunderstand or the dates are incorrect." Andrew took a sip of water on his desk.

"Otherwise, Navaronia full-heartedly supports the proposal by Illia."

The lead Myrorian delegate leaned into the microphone.

"Other than our Navaronian colleagues' question about term lengths, with which we concur, we have no problems with this proposal."

As the Secretary-General is a more oversight and ceremonial roll geared towards internal voting procedures and the like. We lack any justification that it would need to be nominated and elected as often as the CoN. Though if it would be more acceptable, we can add another subsection for removal of a Sec-Gen by an incoming CoN if they find the Sec-Gen is abusing their authority or not acting in good faith.

~Chairman El Trecht

Tolima would require any incoming Council to need full Council support and at least a majority of the Assembly - although preferably a two thirds super majority - to prevent petty politics from engulfing the Secretary General's chair.

St George:

Tolima would require any incoming Council to need full Council support and at least a majority of the Assembly - although preferably a two thirds super majority - to prevent petty politics from engulfing the Secretary General's chair.

Click to expand...

The Empire agrees with the statement by Tolima. The role of the Secretary-General should not be a role fought over pettily.

Helen Etherington rises to speak, "Mr Acting Chairman, I rise to note the support of the Confederacy for the alterations proposed by the Itrean League; we do, however, have a question as to the amended paragraph 6:

6. The Assembly of Nations and Council of Nations shall be jointly led by the Secretary-General, who is nominated by at least 50% of sitting members of the Council of Nations and confirmed by the Assembly of Nations with a plurality of votes in a multi-nominatee situation, restricted to a 40% legitimacy threshold. in majority votes.

Click to expand...

The paragraph requires any nominee to be supported by at least half of the Council of Nations, this could, at most, result in two nominees being proposed. Despite the effective limit of only two nominees, however, it is suggested that a nominee would only require the support of a plurality exceeding forty percent of this Assembly. Is this intended to be suggestive of a third option of voting which would count against both nominees or is this some artifact left over from the drafting stage?"

Madam Etherington,

You are thinking that the council has actual binding rules for the nomination of the Secretary-General. Which is actually not true, its up to the whims of the incumbent Sec-Gen to actually decide how many nations each seat on the council of nations can actually nominate for the next Sec-Gen.

If you would like to propose an addition that would add a cap I would be willing to consider reworking the proposal as it currently stands.

~Chairmen el Trecht.

---

Delegations of Tolima & Syrixia,

We do not see merit in your argument, especially since unanimous approval by the council is something that is attainable by almost no nation or their delegation and a 66+1 super majority situation in the Assembly would be a ridiculous margin to climb in any situation with more then one candidate. That is why I proposed a legitimacy quota because as it stands if there are three candidates for Secretary-General two get the same number of votes and the last gets only one vote more they would become Secretary-General with a mear 34%. And I shall remind the Toliman Delegation that if they would require something they should have actually put it in the Charter when they proposed it to the world.

~Chairmen el Trecht

We agree with the proposal as it currently stands and have nothing further to comment on. As such, we motion for a vote.

The August Consular Office has considered inviting nomination and sponsorships for this legislation to go to vote, and has decided to do so.

We would ask that the author themselves nominate their proposal for vote, and then receive a sponsorship and a seconding sponsorship on the nomination before the proposal is put to vote.

We apologize to the Rose League for overstepping our bounds on this matter, but we wish to propose this structure as a customary norm until more formal structure can be established. If it pleases the Rose League, we wish to ask their motion be considered as a sponsorship to the proposal, if the Ilian Coalition wishes to nominate themselves.

The Grand Federation seconds the August statement.