[SC - PASSED] Repeal "Commend The Holy Principality Of Saint Mark"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
sc.jpg

Repeal "Commend The Holy Principality Of Saint Mark"
Category: Repeal | Target: SC #302
Proposed by: Gorundu | Onsite Topic
Replacement: TBA (Being privately drafted)​


Security Council Resolution #302 “Commend The Holy Principality of Saint Mark” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Recognising the work of The Holy Principality of Saint Mark (hereinafter referred to as “Saint Mark”) in the West Pacific and other regions, and the respect they command across these regions,

Regretting, however, that their actions and impact were painted in an inaccurate and incomplete light in their commendation, due to the presence of vague, unsubstantiated claims, and the citation of many actions that are dubious in terms of creating a lasting positive impact,

Noting that their actions in “introducing the new Imperial culture” and “amending the Manners of Governance of the West” have failed to confer a lasting positive impact on the West Pacific, and were in fact reversed by their immediate successor as Delegate,

Frustrated that their work in Albion was not explained in context of the culture or history of the now-inactive region, thus failing to prove the significance of the work,

Confused by the citation of their contributions to The Sasquatch Republic, given that the region has never exceeded 25 nations in population and is entirely unremarkable in the greater world,

Challenging the citation of their service as Arbiter in the Conclave of The East Pacific in the commendation, given that their only action as Arbiter was their resignation in which they apologised for their “inattention” after an Advisory Question was filed,

Observing that during their tenure as the “longest serving Priest of Osiris”, they had presided over just a single case in the Council of Priests, and that it remains the only case to have been ruled on by the Council of Priests its over two years of existence, a fact which betrays their lack of accomplishment in the position and the limited utility of the judicial system which they had crafted, which was incompatible with the system of government in Osiris,

Disappointed by the erroneous description of Saint Mark’s “assistance in forming the News Partnership Framework which established the governance and goals of the NSToday organization”, as the governance and goals of the organization are detailed in its Charter, not the News Partnership Framework,

Further noting that the News Partnership Framework, the establishment of which Saint Mark was credited with assisting, was never publicly explained throughout its existence, and later required renegotiation with all previous partners, due to its ineffectiveness and lack of benefits to participating regions, as admitted by NationStates Today’s then-Public Relations Director,

Questioning, therefore, the effectiveness of the News Partnership Framework in promoting the development of news media in partnered regions, and thus its benefit to the media scene in NationStates at large,

Exasperated further that the commendation failed to go into sufficient detail concerning the alleged achievements of Saint Mark in many cases, including:
  • What kind of “internal reform” they encouraged in The Pacific, how it was achieved, which regions in the conflict involving The Pacific they helped “reach accord”;
  • How they “[responded] to events both internal and external in a thoughtful, reasoned way” as Delegate of the West Pacific; and
  • Their efforts at "protecting and guiding new nations" in Karma;
Concluding that due to the above failures present in the resolution, it does not sufficiently prove its thesis that Saint Mark was “a leader in many aspects of the world”,

Hereby repeals SC#302 “Commend The Holy Principality of Saint Mark”.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]14[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

Repeal "Commend The Holy Principality Of Saint Mark" was passed 9,636 votes to 4,252 (69.4% support).
 
Last edited:
IFV - For

Overview
This proposal aims to repeal "Commend The Holy Principality of Saint Mark" for factual inaccuracies, poor handling of the nominee's accomplishments, and suboptimal writing.

Recommendation
While The Holy Principality of Saint Mark is certainly a noteworthy and commendable nation, the commendation currently on the books simply fails to do them justice. This repeal highlights numerous concrete issues with the target resolution, such as the nominee's contributions to Albion and Osiris being poorly represented and their contributions to the West Pacific and The Pacific being given insufficient elaboration. Additionally, repealing this resolution opens the door to a better future commendation that gives the nominee the recognition they deserve.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the at-vote Security Council proposal, "Repeal 'Commend The Holy Principality of Saint Mark.'"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against

This wasn’t the way to do this. An acceptable replacement should have been waiting in the wings before this was submitted. The commendation is not good enough and should be replaced, but there was no reason to embark on this process without that replacement being prepared and, just as importantly, having been considered by Halo and TWP. This isn’t just a question of strategy or common sense, but also respect and good manners. Having seen the discourse in this repeal’s discussion thread, we can see exactly what the consequences of approaching the repeal in this way have been, and it was entirely unnecessary.
 
Extremely well-written and researched. Given that Halo is a non-complier and the original resolution is poorly written, I am absolutely For this. Well done Gorundu.

Against

This wasn’t the way to do this. An acceptable replacement should have been waiting in the wings before this was submitted. The commendation is not good enough and should be replaced, but there was no reason to embark on this process without that replacement being prepared and, just as importantly, having been considered by Halo and TWP. This isn’t just a question of strategy or common sense, but also respect and good manners. Having seen the discourse in this repeal’s discussion thread, we can see exactly what the consequences of approaching the repeal in this way have been, and it was entirely unnecessary.

You wrongly make the assumption that some/many of us want this replaced.
 
Last edited:
Saw some non-compliance talk on the resolution forum. That brings up the question of what exactly is the nature of the WA? Is non-compliance with GA basis for arguments in SC resolutions given that they are bodies for very different purposes? If the Assembly was truly bicameral, then all non-complaince violations would be treated wrt WA but WA is really two unicameral legislatures mashed together. That really muddles the validity of any argument on basis of non-compliance.
 
Saw some non-compliance talk on the resolution forum. That brings up the question of what exactly is the nature of the WA? Is non-compliance with GA basis for arguments in SC resolutions given that they are bodies for very different purposes? If the Assembly was truly bicameral, then all non-complaince violations would be treated wrt WA but WA is really two unicameral legislatures mashed together. That really muddles the validity of any argument on basis of non-compliance.
This is pure hogwash.

That the two chambers address different topics doesn't do anything to the validity of arguments on the basis of non-compliance - it just means that the two chambers are focussed on different things. They're still both chambers of the World Assembly and any nation that willfully and publicly is non-compliant with passed World Assembly resolutions is just not worthy of commendation.
 
This is pure hogwash.

That the two chambers address different topics doesn't do anything to the validity of arguments on the basis of non-compliance - it just means that the two chambers are focussed on different things. They're still both chambers of the World Assembly and any nation that willfully and publicly is non-compliant with passed World Assembly resolutions is just not worthy of commendation.
Are nations not in the WA at all like Saint Mark liable to WA compliance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top