Jedinsto wrote:Waking up to brand new badge hunting accusations, gotta love it. Instead of saying my proposal's rushed and poorly written, how about you actually provide some real feedback?
With respect, it's not our job to write your proposal, especially with that attitude. Nonetheless, here are a few things:
Jedinsto wrote:Believing that quorum raiding undermines the democratic will of the collective member nations of the World Assembly and subjects them to momentary military domination,
This is an inaccurate claim to make, as the democratic will of the World Assembly is expressed during voting. Approvals aren't an expression of the WA's democratic will at all, they're simply approvals received from a small fraction of Delegates to achieve quorum to get it to vote. This is misleading, at best.
Jedinsto wrote:Asserting that using force is not a legitimate means of expressing an opinion,
The literal mission of the Security Council is "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." The Security Council has in fact looked favorably upon the use of force in the past, most notably through the offensive use of Liberation resolutions. The Security Council has also at times included approving references to the use of force in Commendations. Why wouldn't there be situations in which it could look favorably upon the use of force through quorum raiding?
If you want to make the case the Security Council should categorically oppose quorum raiding, you're going to have to do better than a pacifist argument. The Security Council is not now, nor has it ever been a pacifist institution. This argument isn't going to cut it, probably even for some regions that oppose quorum raiding.
Jedinsto wrote:Noting that there are diplomatic means of preventing a proposal from going to vote,
Perhaps you should elaborate upon them, or make an argument for why they're preferable to quorum raiding.
Jedinsto wrote:Hereby;
- Declares its opposition to quorum raiding,
- Urges militaries to immediately cease quorum raiding operations and,
- Strongly suggests that those in opposition to a proposal find diplomatic means of expressing these opinions.
These are very basic clauses. That could be fine, if you're into having the part that comes after the operative clause be shorter, but if so you need to flesh out the preamble to the operative clause more than you have thus far. The meat of the proposal doesn't have to come after the operative clause, but there does have to be meat to the proposal somewhere. If there's a sound argument to be made in categorical opposition to quorum raiding, you aren't making it yet. You're making very simplistic, sweeping arguments that don't have any basis in either previous Security Council resolutions or prevailing interregional opinion on the use of force.