(Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

UnitedStatesOfScouting Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:21 pm

Pursuant to the "Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment" (Or more commonly known as) "WA Voting Reforms Act", which has reformed the "World Alliance Security Council Act", these voting guidelines now take effect as passed into law on 1/30/2015 at 1:31 AM (GMT-5).

"Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent or two thirds concurrence of all its voting member states."

As recommended by the "WA Voting Reforms Act", although unofficially implemented, we're reviewing certain legislature that were dismissed due to "death by abstention".

AS ORIGINALLY POSTED BY: MUCHOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t685-dismissed-muchos-estados-unidos-vs-xolox

Article 8. Any sovereign state or any entity that will hinder the execution of this Resolution of the Security Council shall be considered as well as a threat to international security and stability and shall be dealt with accordingly under international laws. And if such is a member state of the Security Council, violations of this Resolution shall be ground for its immediate removal from the body. Otherwise, shall be penalized accordingly.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:47 pm

Against

UnitedStatesOfScouting Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:13 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

AS ORIGINALLY POSTED BY: MUCHOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t685-dismissed-muchos-estados-unidos-vs-xolox

Article 8. Any sovereign state or any entity that will hinder the execution of this Resolution of the Security Council shall be considered as well as a threat to international security and stability and shall be dealt with accordingly under international laws. And if such is a member state of the Security Council, violations of this Resolution shall be ground for its immediate removal from the body. Otherwise, shall be penalized accordingly.

The request can now be voted by ALL SC Members. This request will be voted on within five (5) days.

Great Eurussia Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:16 pm

Eurussia is in favor. We urge and hope our ally, Xolox, will promote and stand by the rule of law by facing the legal challenge of Scouting and Muchos Estados Unidos. We strongly believe the Loxan Government is capable of overcoming this legal challenge since we believe that arbitration is a peaceful way of settling disputes.

Kingdom of Ireland Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:20 pm

We will for the time being Abstain

Muchos Estados Unidos Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:04 am

Thanks Scouting! Favor

Xolox Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:04 am

The actual accusation was never clarified. I don't understand how this can be a proposal with there being nothing for me to be arbitrated (new word?) for.

Xolox Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:09 am

So can article 8 just be arbitrarily used to punish anyone the SC is angry with? "Your flag is ugly and it distracted me from voting! You are hindering the Security Council and will be justly punished!"

UnitedStatesOfScouting Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:19 am

Xolox wrote:So can article 8 just be arbitrarily used to punish anyone the SC is angry with? "Your flag is ugly and it distracted me from voting! You are hindering the Security Council and will be justly punished!"

I'm not going to do the work of MEU for them, but here is the original case that failed;

Xolox must be removed from this great Security Council for violating the intervention of the WOORLD ALLIANCE PEACE FORCE. Please read it and because Xolox protecting the tyrannical dictator and evil leader of North Korea, Xolox must face the consequences of his actions. He violated the intervention order of the Security Council. Consider this as case against Xolox.

This is compulsory arbitration to essentially force you to face trial, granted that enough votes are in favor.

Xolox Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:21 am

Face trial for what? The accusations don't even apply now and they didn't make sense before, anyway.

DPRNK Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm

We support in favour

Snarfian Federation Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:31 pm

Against

Ebsotz Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:05 am

I don't know, honestly. I am stuck, in between allies & allies.
What we need is some proof MEU. Where is the proof that he is supporting the DPRK? *Also Xolox: Choose your words carefully. I think his flag is wonderful!*

But, for now, we are in somewhat leaning toward the favor side.

Xolox Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:21 am

Ebsotz wrote: *Also Xolox: Choose your words carefully. I think his flag is wonderful!*

Who's flag are you referring to? I was making up a random scenario to show how the article used to punish me could be arbitrarily used to punish anyone. And what do you mean "choose your words carefully"? What are you threatening to do?

UnitedStatesOfScouting Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:34 am

Ebsotz wrote:I don't know, honestly. I am stuck, in between allies & allies.
What we need is some proof MEU. Where is the proof that he is supporting the DPRK? *Also Xolox: Choose your words carefully. I think his flag is wonderful!*

But, for now, we are in somewhat leaning toward the favor side.

I need a solid Favor, Against, or Abstain.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:31 am

A vote is hereby called for two (2) days.
The STATUS OF VOTES are:

* Pending - (6) - New Rhodinia, Serenarea, Chivalry, Zanland, Scottlands, Ebsotz

* Yes - (4) - Muchos Estados Unidos, New Korrea, Great Eurussia, China China

* No - (2) - Scouting, Snarfia

* Abstain - (1) - Empire of Russia

Muchos Estados Unidos Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:41 am

We need to support this to find out the mystery on Xolox role during the Korean War when he suddeny give haven for Kim jong-un when he is on his way to get defeated knowing that he is holding the VP position in the Security Council ordering military liberation in Korea.

This case is important because he looks like forcing Great Eurussia to give back his VP seat and now he is just contented with a seat because he cannot bend the law on his favor. We need to know if he was transpiring with Kim Jong-Un during the war while the WASC is busy talking about liberation. Remember, he is the VP at that time.

Serenarea Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:41 am

Against.

Muchos Estados Unidos Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:43 am

Serenarea wrote:Against.

We need to support this to find out the mystery on Xolox role during the Korean War when he suddeny give haven for Kim jong-un when he is on his way to get defeated knowing that he is holding the VP position in the Security Council ordering military liberation in Korea.

This case is important because he looks like forcing Great Eurussia to give back his VP seat and now he is just contented with a seat because he cannot bend the law on his favor. We need to know if he was transpiring with Kim Jong-Un during the war while the WASC is busy talking about liberation. Remember, he is the VP at that time.

New Rhodinia Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:59 pm

Keeping Kim Jong Un in confinement is probably the best option. It's birthed a more democratic and functional nation that actually seems to be improving; introducing the previous leader back to Korea would only reset everything that was done up until now, which was not very pretty to begin with.

New Rhodinia is against this accusation on Xolox.

Great Eurussia Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:25 am

The WA Presidency believes that the Security Council has been very lenient lately on allowing non-member states of the SC to voice their opinions. However, seeing that there are nations that are being disrespectful to certain WASC members and in the whole WASC itself, the WA President believes that our efforts to allow more opinions to be heard even from non-SC members are being abused and as such resorting to very undiplomatic overtures. Hence, the WA Presidency, by virtue of the WASC Act, is asking the Vice Presidency to maintain order, dequorum, and professionalism within the halls of the Security Council.

Therefore, the WA Presidency, for the sake of the integrity and dignity of the Security Council, invokes the privileges of all member states of the SC to maintain their exclusive rights of expressing opinions on matters exclusive solely to the Security Council. Therefore, diplomats from non-SC member states shall be barred from interfering in all forums and discussions of the SC, unless otherwise duly welcomed and invited, without opposition.

Thus, non-member states may opt to privately discuss with SC member states, to lobby or speak on their behalf before the Security Council. If they wish to initiate talks of any matter, the WA Affairs Dialogue Subforum is the only place expected to be and should be and non-SC members have all the freedom to invite SC members on those fora and exchange of discussions.

So ordered.

(If there is a conflicting law, that regulation shall prevail.)

OOC: It is my grave disappointment for nations not to realize that being a member state of the SC is a privilege and exercising such privilege rests SOLELY on those nations in the Security Council, regardless of how other nations view those actions and react on its repercussions. It is also a common sense that SC members deserve the respect necessary as SC members, regardless of their political views or actions within the SC. And critics of certain SC members may have all the freedom to initiate rhetoric against their opponents outside the halls of the SC, however, as civilized sovereign states, non-SC members were never granted the privilege nor right to disrespect any member state of the SC much more within the SC halls itself.

Thus, the VP may request for the immediate deletion of non-member state's posts on any thread of the Security Council. We apologize for any inconvenience, but we find this action necessary for the integrity of the Security Council.

Thank you.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:42 am

Wirbanskia wrote:You know, this raises the question, why are we keeping him alive? Is it for leverage? or something completely different? It's not like we need him alive for information or even leverage. The longer we keep him alive the more Koreaa will cry and whine about having this oh so important man back in the same country we liberated to REMOVE him from.

The Holy Empire of Artite wrote:
Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:
Serenarea wrote:Against.

We need to support this to find out the mystery on Xolox role during the Korean War when he suddeny give haven for Kim jong-un when he is on his way to get defeated knowing that he is holding the VP position in the Security Council ordering military liberation in Korea.

This case is important because he looks like forcing Great Eurussia to give back his VP seat and now he is just contented with a seat because he cannot bend the law on his favor. We need to know if he was transpiring with Kim Jong-Un during the war while the WASC is busy talking about liberation. Remember, he is the VP at that time.

You know repeating yourself like a broken record might not make your case any more valid. You will never get Kim Jung Un out of Xolox, not unless you want to send your own troops to get their hands dirty and get him out of that HIGHLY MILITARIZED and HIGHLY DANGEROUS place, but if you do be my guest, I will see any encroachment of military action on Loxan land as a declaration of war...and this time, I will not think twice about alternative options, I have had it with the children of the WA, it is high time there was a good thrashing.

So how do you guys want to do this? Pass the resolution and have his allies coax him into handing over Kim Jung Un, or piss off some rather powerful nations? You're call, I have no problem causing chaos for the WA, it is my job to rattle the cage, put you pansies on edge.

Please move these opinions to your appropriate WASC Continent thread if you wish to keep these posts. You have 6 Hours.

Furthermore, please keep in mind to hold a respectful manner towards members of the WASC. We are required to take in your input into considering our vote in matters, however this doesn't mean that we should be verbally assaulted. Thank You.

Kingdom of Scottlands Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:09 pm

Abstain.

Ebsotz Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:44 am

We are now against. Sorry I blamed you Xolox XD

And by the way, what does "abstain" mean? You see, English is not exactly my "first language".

Thank you.

Xolox Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:46 am

Ebsotz wrote:We are now against. Sorry I blamed you Xolox XD

And by the way, what does "abstain" mean? You see, English is not exactly my "first language".

Thank you.

It's like withdrawing your vote or choosing not to take a stance.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

(Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

NOTICE

Eurussian Vote

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

NOTICE

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

NOTICE

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox

Re: (Dismissed) Compulsory Arbitration of Xolox