(Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Great Eurussia Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:25 am

WASC QUALIFICATIONS ACT
Authored by the Empire of Great Eurussia

This is a legislative RP/OOC proposal.

Seeing the series of cases being deliberated by the SC and no existing proposals aiming for the betterment of the WA are being discussed and as well as seeing the pending appointments to the WASC and using the same reasons as with Scottlands as to ensure that only qualified and reputable sovereign states will be able to be granted a prestigious seat at the SC and as well as to standardize the screening of candidate countries lessening the burden for the WA Presidency, we hereby proposes the World Alliance Security Council Qualifications Act.

Section 1) Sovereign states can be qualified to join the Security Council if they have met the conditions set forth by the existing international laws of the World Alliance particularly the WA Security Council Act and the succeeding provisions of this Act.

Section 2) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they have stayed continuously in the World Alliance for not less than fourteen days.

Section 3) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not sponsoring any form of terrorism or unprovoked aggression or state of war.

Section 4) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if more members of the WASC are supportive of their membership to the Security Council than those against their membership to the Security Council.

Section 5) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not involved in any pending international cases in the Security Council.

Section 6) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not proven intentionally guilty on international cases that constituted violations of the fundamental and basic law of the World Alliance, the WA Security Council Act.

Section 7) Sovereign states may not be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they have been subjected to verdicts, negatively, arising from international cases, for five multiple times, while not a member state of the Security Council. And such number shall be reset if the concerned sovereign state has not been subjected to verdicts, in the negative way, and violating existing international laws intentionally, arising from international cases, within a period of six months.

This was derived from Scottland's proposal and we welcome suggestions.
This may be debated and revised within three (3) days.

Shockwave Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:30 am

For the moment until we review this proposal we are temporally Against

[edit] Considering obvious modifications need to be made, we will be against this until the changes are made.

Ebsotz Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:38 am

I think we need a stricter qualifications guideline for those who join, so...

Kingdom of Ireland Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:30 am

We support this

New Rhodinia Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:04 am

Great Eurussia wrote:Section 6) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not proven guilty on international cases that constituted violations of the fundamental and basic law of the World Alliance, the WA Security Council Act.

Section 7) Sovereign states may not be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they have been subjected to verdicts, negatively, arising from international cases, for five multiple times, while not a member state of the Security Council. And such number shall be reset if the concerned sovereign state has not been subjected to verdicts, in the negative way, arising from international cases, within a period of six months.

Section 6 needs a time limit for these cases. Unless it is purposefully meant to apply to any case on record, we see this as a tad unfair; if we had a case from, say, 15 years ago and everything up until now has been just grand, it'd be pretty odd to outright not allow them to run.

Section 7, on the other hand, is outright far-fetched. A nation loses five international cases and now has to not lose a single case for the next SIX MONTHS for eligibility? We suggest this be set to a numerical value as well, say, another five cases. This is noting that I'm making the correct assumption that nations that lose five international cases are no longer eligible for a WASC seat.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:14 am

Abstain

DPRNK Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:21 am

Serenarea Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:34 am

Favor.

Snarfian Federation Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:05 pm

Favor

Kingdom of Scottlands Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:12 am

Scottish Republic is in favor.

Great Eurussia Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:30 am

Wirbanskia wrote:For the moment until we review this proposal we are temporally Against

[edit] Considering obvious modifications need to be made, we will be against this until the changes are made.

May we know what are these modifications you are talking about?

Great Eurussia Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:49 am

New Rhodinia wrote:
Section 6 needs a time limit for these cases. Unless it is purposefully meant to apply to any case on record, we see this as a tad unfair; if we had a case from, say, 15 years ago and everything up until now has been just grand, it'd be pretty odd to outright not allow them to run.

Having the WA Security Council Act serving as the de facto constitution or basic law of the WA, all nations are expected to uphold and dearly respect the said law since being inside the WA Security Council, members are highly assumed to be aware of laws and their fundamental objectives of maintaining order in the WA. Thus, violations of laws, most importantly the WASC Act, should equate into a grave violation similar to the gravity of consequence of a constitutional violation. But citing your reasoning, we could apply here the 6 months rule where a nation will not be eligible to bid for SC seat within 6 months if it was found of blatant disregard and intentional violation of the WASC Act. We will give emphasis on the intentional feature so as not to affect those who were unintentionally violating the WASC Act since we noticed we have that unintented implications from our initial proposal.

Section 7, on the other hand, is outright far-fetched. A nation loses five international cases and now has to not lose a single case for the next SIX MONTHS for eligibility? We suggest this be set to a numerical value as well, say, another five cases. This is noting that I'm making the correct assumption that nations that lose five international cases are no longer eligible for a WASC seat.

Having the same grounds as our justifications for Section 6, we also emphasize on the importance for countries planning to gain a WASC seat to be aware of as much as possible all laws in the WA where they are expected not to violate them by all means since if they were granted a seat, they are assumed to know and implement those very laws. But since we have applied the 6 months prohibition above, we will reduce the prohibition regarding this provision for 3 months and will as well emphasize on the notion that this will only apply on cases where nations intentionally violated the laws where they were given a verdict negatively and not necessarily lose a case where they could might just unintentionally violated a certain law.

The importance of these provisions highlight the fact that members of the WASC are regarded as nations with high moral ground and integrity to serve the international community and should not act carelessly that could impact the dignity and integrity of the WASC. So as to at the very least, make SC members feel privileged of being ranked as one of the best nations to serve the world given the privilege to become part of the most important organ and institution of the world.

Shockwave Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:51 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Wirbanskia wrote:For the moment until we review this proposal we are temporally Against

[edit] Considering obvious modifications need to be made, we will be against this until the changes are made.

May we know what are these modifications you are talking about?

Mainly the clarifications/modifications that New Rhodinia suggested. But seeing as this is on the more legitimate side of proposals we are now In Favor

UnitedStatesOfScouting Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:39 am

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

* Favor - (6) - New Korrea, Serenarea, Snarfia, Scottlands, Wirbanskia, Empire of Russia

* Against - (0) -

* Abstentions - (1) - Scouting

Muchos Estados Unidos Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:59 pm

MEU is in favor.

Great Eurussia Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:36 am

Eurussia is in favor.

Great Eurussia Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:52 am

Great Eurussia wrote:

WASC QUALIFICATIONS ACT
Authored by the Empire of Great Eurussia

This is a legislative RP/OOC proposal.

Seeing the series of cases being deliberated by the SC and no existing proposals aiming for the betterment of the WA are being discussed and as well as seeing the pending appointments to the WASC and using the same reasons as with Scottlands as to ensure that only qualified and reputable sovereign states will be able to be granted a prestigious seat at the SC and as well as to standardize the screening of candidate countries lessening the burden for the WA Presidency, we hereby proposes the World Alliance Security Council Qualifications Act.
Section 1) Sovereign states can be qualified to join the Security Council if they have met the conditions set forth by the existing international laws of the World Alliance particularly the WA Security Council Act and the succeeding provisions of this Act.
Section 2) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they have stayed continuously in the World Alliance for not less than fourteen days.
Section 3) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not sponsoring any form of terrorism or unprovoked aggression or state of war.
Section 4) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if more members of the WASC are supportive of their membership to the Security Council than those against their membership to the Security Council.
Section 5) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not involved in any pending international cases in the Security Council.
Section 6) Sovereign states may be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they are not proven intentionally guilty on international cases that constituted violations of the fundamental and basic law of the World Alliance, the WA Security Council Act.
Section 7) Sovereign states may not be eligible for candidacy for a seat at the Security Council, if they have been subjected to verdicts, negatively, arising from international cases, for five multiple times, while not a member state of the Security Council. And such number shall be reset if the concerned sovereign state has not been subjected to verdicts, in the negative way, and violating existing international laws intentionally, arising from international cases, within a period of six months.

This was derived from Scottland's proposal and we welcome suggestions.
This may be debated and revised within three (3) days.

With eight nations in favor and with one abstention, having garnered 88% approval of the WA Security Council, the WA Qualifications Act is now an international law.

Sponsored content

(Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

(Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act

Eurussian News

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) WASC Qualifications Act