(Former) Fifth Security Council

What does the Security Council think about adding a 'Future Tech' and/or a 'FT:FTL' tag to the region? Judging by the RP and the numerous space colonies, I think it's safe to say the decision has been made for future tech RP. The tag(s) would advertise that fact, which could attract prospective members.

How does that sound to everyone?

I think thats a great idea.

@Vendoland, New Zealand, I have no opposition to that :-D

Excellent. Thank you for taking care of that, Eurussia.

On to other business. I am proposing a constitutional amendment. Specifically, it would change Article V, Section II (the outright prohibition of war) to something like this:

No member state shall engage in war unless all parties consent to it

This way, war is only valid if both sides agree to it. If one nation unilaterally declares war on another that doesn't consent, the war is illegal and subject to prosecution.

If that doesn't work, I say Article V, Section II should be abolished completely.

@Vendoland, I am in favor of abolishing it completely, it's totally useless. Besides, there is a provision in Article 4, recognizing the right to self defense. I guess it explains itself. Also, I would also like to push an amendment increasing the number of nations in the Security Council on a ratio basis. What do you think?

We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

But, we also agree that the ratio for the number of nations to the Security Council should be more like the real United Nations Security Council ratio.

Holy Patrician States wrote:We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

I disagree. If the region ignores the law and continues with war in spite of it, it still means that the region is breaking the law. Amending or abolishing it entirely would mean there would be fewer lawbreakers.

Vendoland wrote:

Holy Patrician States wrote:We also agree that the restrictions against war have already been broken, so there is no sense in adding/reforming the War Section in the Constitution.

I disagree. If the region ignores the law and continues with war in spite of it, it still means that the region is breaking the law. Amending or abolishing it entirely would mean there would be fewer lawbreakers.

I agree with you, Vendoland. If we this amendment had already been in place, we could have completely avoided the Great War by ignoring the UCPP's declarations of war.

I think we should void the clause.

New-Zealand wrote:I think we should void the clause.

Seconded.

This particular law has never once been upheld, nor does it serve any logical purpose at this time.

Perhaps someone on the Security Council would like to start a Constitutional Convention to amend or abolish the aforementioned section?

It can be done via unanimous SC vote

I believe there are more things we need to discuss regarding the constitution, however, than can be done through unanimous votes. We need to decide whether to change the SC's size so it is in a decent ratio with the nations of the World Alliance and then decide what ratio to change it to. I think a constitutional conference would be appropriate.

1 SC member for every 10 region members?




Perhaps 1 SC member for every 15 region members?

Or perhaps 1 for every 5. We need to be represented!

Naujoji America wrote:Or perhaps 1 for every 5. We need to be represented!

yea... 27 SC members? One for every 15 would give us 9 SC members. One for every 10 would give us 13 SC members. I think we should go for 1:15 ratio, or 1:12 or something.

we need eleven members... 10 is a reasonable # + 1 swing vote

Naujoji America wrote:we need eleven members... 10 is a reasonable # + 1 swing vote

The ratio "1:20" is the most convenient and reasonable...

Please keep in mind that we only have 10-20 active members involved in regional politics and roleplay at any given time, so to have up to or over half of them members of the regional government is illogical unless we intend to adopt a United Nations style system of governance, as was proposed (and eventually rejected) when initial plans for the constitution were being drafted.

Novo Canuckia wrote:Please keep in mind that we only have 10-20 active members involved in regional politics and roleplay at any given time, so to have up to or over half of them members of the regional government is illogical unless we intend to adopt a United Nations style system of governance, as was proposed (and eventually rejected) when initial plans for the constitution were being drafted.

Adopting a UN Style of governance and following the UN General Assembly format would be disastrous for the World Alliance as no laws will surely pass.

1:15 would be a good ratio... perhaps 1:17?

1:16?

Eurussia is saying that the more people we have, the more bureaucracy we will have. Less is better, in this case.