Amending Security Council Admission Requirements

Zeek

Zeek

TNPer
Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply to join the Council, as long as their nation satisfies any influence and endorsement requirements for membership. Any applicant who does not meet the appropriate requirements, or who ceases to meet them, is automatically rejected.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. The endorsement requirement is at least 500, or 50 percent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
7. By a two-thirds majority vote, the Security Council may exempt nations who have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.
Click to expand...

Instead of putting forth a proper proposal I wish instead to hear everyone's opinions first whether or not the SC requirements should be amended because I understand that when contemplating changes to such a necessary body it can be challenging to weight the pros and cons and how it may impact future SC applications.

Right now under the requirements a resident/citizen of the region must have a SPDR of 182,200 and 500 endorsements(or half of the delegates endorsements), right now the number of residents/citizens that meet this requirement including the delegate and current SC members stands at 33. In the SC applications of both Kasch and Plembobria the same question has been proposed to both, "should their be a cap of how many members can their be in the Security Council?"

Should I had proposed this it would've bumped the minimum amount of endorsements to 600, while only increasing the percentage of the delegates endorsements to only 55%. Thus the SDFR minimum would've been bumped to 219,000. These three increases combined I estimate that the number of residents/citizens that would meet this requirement decreases to around 23-24. So yes under these requirements Pembobria would not be eligible(whether or not Section 5.7 would be used to waive the influence requirements).

Why bring this up? Why not, I believe that there should be discussions surrounding the minimum requirements to the SC every once and a while, especially now that the council will have ten members, potentially eleven and that the question concerning the number of councilors has been asked.
 
I don't think having a bunch of people on the SC is necessarily a bad thing. Having a crapload of people who are able, willing, meet the requirements, and have received the confidence of the Security Council and Regional Assembly keeping us safe sounds great to me.
 
I don't think changes are necessary because candidates to the security council need to fulfil other unofficial requirments that are not in the law
 
I'm not convinced this is necessary. Seems an overreaction to a question that one person asked to applicants, which both applicants answered negatively to.
 
I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to have a large security council body, if anything having a large and visible security council only strengthens our image as a bastion of democracy and stability.
 
I've held firm the belief that if a body of action such as the Regional Assembly admits a person to the Council, they have taken into account the current number of applicants and have agreed that the addition of another will not negatively influence the capability of the Council to work and act as Lord Ravenclaw has rightly stated above, a bastion of democracy and stability.

If it became a problem backed with actual evidence that the number of Councillors decreased the efficiency to operate as the Council, then that is something we can address if and when it arises. But at the moment, or at any moment in the past that I am aware of, the only number-related problems the Council has faced are low roster counts and low endorsement counts.
 
I agree with the sentiments above, as long as SC members are diligent and do the job effectively then the size of it isn't necessarily an issue
 
I suppose I should actually reply :)

I am not disappointed in any of the replies that were given as I did assume that at this time there was no need to change the current requirements and am very pleased with the replies by current SC members. At least for the for see-able future should this topic come up again I suppose some one could use this thread as a reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top