ICDN Security Council (ICDN SC Members Only)

[Chuying]

"On a sidenote, may we veto the admission of a new member to the ICDN? I have noticed that the United International Cooperative has submitted its own application to join, and I believe it may be problematic to have an international organization be a member of our international organization. They potentially may have ulterior motives to bend the ICDN to their member states will, as they are not a country seeking to join us; but another international organization."


OOC: This situation is like if the UN tried to join the EU, or if NATO tried to join ASEAN. It's kind of strange

[Silvedania]

"On a sidenote, may we veto the admission of a new member to the ICDN? I have noticed that the United International Cooperative has submitted its own application to join, and I believe it may be problematic to have an international organization be a member of our international organization. They potentially may have ulterior motives to bend the ICDN to their member states will, as they are not a country seeking to join us; but another international organization."


OOC: This situation is like if the UN tried to join the EU, or if NATO tried to join ASEAN. It's kind of strange

OOC: Probably Allied Tribe on the wrong account

[Dalmannia]

OOC:
This thread from page 15 onwards: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=501275&start=350

And then stuff earlier in this thread (the SC thread)

I have had a chance to look over Ludistan's actions, and although this body is dedicated to protecting democracy; we cannot tolerate a rogue state acting of it's own accord and not consulting with the Security Council as that is a dangerous precedence to set. If Ludistan can threaten to attack a nation simply for not having "enough democracy", what's to say Ludistan won't attack one of us for having "too much democracy"? How is our organization going to protect and promote democracy if one of our own members threatens and attacks nations when they do something they don't like, that behavior is not acceptable.

I vote aye for putting their seat up for election, if Ludistan wants to prove itself a reliable partner it should willingly partake in the ICDN's own democratic exercise in electing Security Council members, and show that it can accept democracy on its own accord before trying to interfere in another country's affairs.

“Looks like we’ll have another election for their open seat then. Even if Spaincio votes “Nay” on Corrington’s proposal, we now have a veto-proof majority. I’ll alert the GA.”

[Spaincio]

"The blantant disregard of the security Council is utterly atrocious. However, I don believe on a looser leash. I will abstain."

[Chuying]

"In regards to the election, does any member state have the intention of voting for Ludistan's re-admission into the Security Council? I'm curious, Chuying may cast its vote for a more reliable alternative however; taking into consideration nations that may be more diplomatic and friendly to our democratic cause."

[Arvan Irawer]

"In regards to the election, does any member state have the intention of voting for Ludistan's re-admission into the Security Council? I'm curious, Chuying may cast its vote for a more reliable alternative however; taking into consideration nations that may be more diplomatic and friendly to our democratic cause."

"I don't believe Ludistan has signed up for the election yet. However, we shall not comment on how we will vote until the election."

On a different matter, they introduce an amendment to the Security Council charter:

“Corrington, as the conceptual founder of the Security Council, proposes that the election of Security Council members be changed from an annual event, to an event which occurs every 3 to 4 months (irl). This would mean a complete election of all members every 3-4 months. Term limits would still apply. Corrington believes that this proposal is necessary, because not all current Security Council members frequently vote or debate much of anything, and the increasing membership of the general assembly means that the consensus of the ICDN is always shifting.”

"We would like to bring Corrington's proposal to a vote."

Arvan Irawer VOTES AYE.

[Chuying]

On a different matter, they introduce an amendment to the Security Council charter:

“Corrington, as the conceptual founder of the Security Council, proposes that the election of Security Council members be changed from an annual event, to an event which occurs every 3 to 4 months (irl). This would mean a complete election of all members every 3-4 months. Term limits would still apply. Corrington believes that this proposal is necessary, because not all current Security Council members frequently vote or debate much of anything, and the increasing membership of the general assembly means that the consensus of the ICDN is always shifting.”

"Chuying will also like to bring this proposal to a vote. We will ABSTAIN since although we do agree with this proposal, I think that seats should go up for emergency election if the nation holding it is not participating for at least a month, or if it is starting random conflicts and dragging the ICDN into it without our authorization, this proposal needs to be reworked to add that; however elections should be held every 4 months."

OOC: I think since time passes differently in NS RPs we can treat 4 months between elections as if each month is a year, so then it would be as if the election happens every 4 years which reflects real world elections.

[Corrington]

"In regards to the election, does any member state have the intention of voting for Ludistan's re-admission into the Security Council? I'm curious, Chuying may cast its vote for a more reliable alternative however; taking into consideration nations that may be more diplomatic and friendly to our democratic cause."

"I don't believe Ludistan has signed up for the election yet. However, we shall not comment on how we will vote until the election."

On a different matter, they introduce an amendment to the Security Council charter:

“Corrington, as the conceptual founder of the Security Council, proposes that the election of Security Council members be changed from an annual event, to an event which occurs every 3 to 4 months (irl). This would mean a complete election of all members every 3-4 months. Term limits would still apply. Corrington believes that this proposal is necessary, because not all current Security Council members frequently vote or debate much of anything, and the increasing membership of the general assembly means that the consensus of the ICDN is always shifting.”

"We would like to bring Corrington's proposal to a vote."

Arvan Irawer VOTES AYE.

“We obviously VOTE AYE on our own proposal.”

[Arvan Irawer]

On a different matter, they introduce an amendment to the Security Council charter:

“Corrington, as the conceptual founder of the Security Council, proposes that the election of Security Council members be changed from an annual event, to an event which occurs every 3 to 4 months (irl). This would mean a complete election of all members every 3-4 months. Term limits would still apply. Corrington believes that this proposal is necessary, because not all current Security Council members frequently vote or debate much of anything, and the increasing membership of the general assembly means that the consensus of the ICDN is always shifting.”

"Chuying will also like to bring this proposal to a vote. We will ABSTAIN since although we do agree with this proposal, I think that seats should go up for emergency election if the nation holding it is not participating for at least a month, or if it is starting random conflicts and dragging the ICDN into it without our authorization, this proposal needs to be reworked to add that; however elections should be held every 4 months."

OOC: I think since time passes differently in NS RPs we can treat 4 months between elections as if each month is a year, so then it would be as if the election happens every 4 years which reflects real world elections.

(OOC: I think an RP time of a year could be an IRL month, but it could only be in ICDN RP, as otherwise we would be ahead of nations in wars.

[Hopal]

"Chuying will also like to bring this proposal to a vote. We will ABSTAIN since although we do agree with this proposal, I think that seats should go up for emergency election if the nation holding it is not participating for at least a month, or if it is starting random conflicts and dragging the ICDN into it without our authorization, this proposal needs to be reworked to add that; however elections should be held every 4 months."

OOC: I think since time passes differently in NS RPs we can treat 4 months between elections as if each month is a year, so then it would be as if the election happens every 4 years which reflects real world elections.

(OOC: I think an RP time of a year could be an IRL month, but it could only be in ICDN RP, as otherwise we would be ahead of nations in wars.

"Hopal will abstain from the proposal from Corrington, as it does not have very strong opinions on the issue one way or the other, but still believes a six month term is best."

(OOC: If we decide that and pass this proposal, would it mean we would have 1 IRL week terms for Security Council members? If so that could be problematic, as there would only be time for a few votes each term, and one vote might not even finish within a term, some terms might not even have votes at all. Power would be very unstable, and there may be some who take advantage of it. But I believe we're going with Chuying's interpretation, correct?)

[Arvan Irawer]

"Hopal will abstain from the proposal from Corrington, as it does not have very strong opinions on the issue one way or the other, but still believes a six month term is best."

(OOC: If we decide that and pass this proposal, would it mean we would have 1 IRL week terms for Security Council members? If so that could be problematic, as there would only be time for a few votes each term, and one vote might not even finish within a term, some terms might not even have votes at all. Power would be very unstable, and there may be some who take advantage of it. But I believe we're going with Chuying's interpretation, correct?)

(OOC: Good point, although we could change it to 4 years RP and 4 months IRL. That would require a rework of the proposal though.)

[Silvedania]

"We believe that no nation should be forced to have their SC seat put up for election, short of a complete removal. We don't believe that Ludistan is deserving of a removal. We would like to issue a warning to Ludistan, to be careful of what they say.

Any nation who wishes to put their seat up for the election may do so. However, Arvan Irawer will not as the ICDN does not seem to have a mistrust or disliking of the Security Council. Therefore, we do not believe a full election is necessary. Last statement may sound extremely selfish, but it is for the overall stability of the ICDN, as changes in quick succession can affect stability."

The Corrish delegation will cease to continue to push for Ludistan’s removal, but only if the proposal is put to a vote. If the majority of the Security Council rules that Ludistan’s seat shouldn’t go up for election, Corrington will stop pushing for this, end of story.

On a different matter, they introduce an amendment to the Security Council charter:

“Corrington, as the conceptual founder of the Security Council, proposes that the election of Security Council members be changed from an annual event, to an event which occurs every 3 to 4 months (irl). This would mean a complete election of all members every 3-4 months. Term limits would still apply. Corrington believes that this proposal is necessary, because not all current Security Council members frequently vote or debate much of anything, and the increasing membership of the general assembly means that the consensus of the ICDN is always shifting.”

(OOC: Vote on the Ludistan question first, the amendment can come later.)

Silvedania votes Aye.

[Corrington]

(OOC: I think an RP time of a year could be an IRL month, but it could only be in ICDN RP, as otherwise we would be ahead of nations in wars.

"Hopal will abstain from the proposal from Corrington, as it does not have very strong opinions on the issue one way or the other, but still believes a six month term is best."

(OOC: If we decide that and pass this proposal, would it mean we would have 1 IRL week terms for Security Council members? If so that could be problematic, as there would only be time for a few votes each term, and one vote might not even finish within a term, some terms might not even have votes at all. Power would be very unstable, and there may be some who take advantage of it. But I believe we're going with Chuying's interpretation, correct?)

(OOC: What scale of time are we moving at? I’m saying 4 months IRL time for the terms)

[Arvan Irawer]

"Hopal will abstain from the proposal from Corrington, as it does not have very strong opinions on the issue one way or the other, but still believes a six month term is best."

(OOC: If we decide that and pass this proposal, would it mean we would have 1 IRL week terms for Security Council members? If so that could be problematic, as there would only be time for a few votes each term, and one vote might not even finish within a term, some terms might not even have votes at all. Power would be very unstable, and there may be some who take advantage of it. But I believe we're going with Chuying's interpretation, correct?)

(OOC: What scale of time are we moving at? I’m saying 4 months IRL time for the terms)

(OOC: I think Chuying said 1 IRL month is 1 RP year, so we would be in the SC for 4 RP years and 4 IRL months)

[Chuying]

(OOC: What scale of time are we moving at? I’m saying 4 months IRL time for the terms)

(OOC: I think Chuying said 1 IRL month is 1 RP year, so we would be in the SC for 4 RP years and 4 IRL months)

OOC: Yeah that's what I meant. 1 IRL month = 1 RP year (at least for our ICDN rps that should be the case), it makes it so that people don't have to wait actual years to run for the SC and will give us something to look forward to every 4 months; plus people will be more active and "enjoy" their time on the council if they know they may lose their seat after 4 months.

It also makes sure we can actually get something done, because if we say did elections every month people would worry about getting reelected rather than actually utilizing the SC effectively.

[South Americanastan]

(OOC: I think Chuying said 1 IRL month is 1 RP year, so we would be in the SC for 4 RP years and 4 IRL months)

OOC: Yeah that's what I meant. 1 IRL month = 1 RP year (at least for our ICDN rps that should be the case), it makes it so that people don't have to wait actual years to run for the SC and will give us something to look forward to every 4 months; plus people will be more active and "enjoy" their time on the council if they know they may lose their seat after 4 months.

It also makes sure we can actually get something done, because if we say did elections every month people would worry about getting reelected rather than actually utilizing the SC effectively.

OOC: My only problem with the 4 month system is that the term limit is still four terms, which means a nation can only hold a seat for 1 1/4 years max

[Chuying]

OOC: Yeah that's what I meant. 1 IRL month = 1 RP year (at least for our ICDN rps that should be the case), it makes it so that people don't have to wait actual years to run for the SC and will give us something to look forward to every 4 months; plus people will be more active and "enjoy" their time on the council if they know they may lose their seat after 4 months.

It also makes sure we can actually get something done, because if we say did elections every month people would worry about getting reelected rather than actually utilizing the SC effectively.

OOC: My only problem with the 4 month system is that the term limit is still four terms, which means a nation can only hold a seat for 1 1/4 years max

OOC: That's if they get reelected, if any of us become warmongers or use the ICDN as our personal military then I doubt we get reelected.

[South Americanastan]

OOC: My only problem with the 4 month system is that the term limit is still four terms, which means a nation can only hold a seat for 1 1/4 years max

OOC: That's if they get reelected, if any of us become warmongers or use the ICDN as our personal military then I doubt we get reelected.

OOC: Yeah, but if they do get reelected, I feel like the term limit should be expanded a little to accommodate the shorter terms.

[Hopal]

OOC: Shouldn't Corrington's proposal be debated in the General Assembly? The formation of the Security Council was voted on in the General Assembly, and this would be an edit of that proposal. Wasn't the Security Council made as a place where matters of security and deployment of forces are debated? Shouldn't a change to the way the ICDN operates be debated as legislation in the General Assembly?

[Chuying]

"Is war against the IDSF actually being considered as an option? I'm not really understanding why we are even having conflicts with them, didn't we work together in a few conflicts in the past? I'm following the recent developments, but it's still not making any sense in regards to how it relates to the ICDN's mission."

[Hopal]

"Is war against the IDSF actually being considered as an option? I'm not really understanding why we are even having conflicts with them, didn't we work together in a few conflicts in the past? I'm following the recent developments, but it's still not making any sense in regards to how it relates to the ICDN's mission."

"None of us want war with the IDSF, but they are threatening war with us. Southeast Marjarbia used to be a member of the ICDN, we were discussing a possible course of action regarding a war in Hun Chu. That is when Southeast Marjarbia intervened in that war, being a member of the ICDN the Secuirty Council condemned them to show the world that we did not endorse their actions and that they were not carrying out those actions on their behalf. They were infuriated at the condemnation, condemned the ICDN and left the ICDN. Along the way we sanctioned them, they threatened and sanctioned us, and that is how hostilities arose. We came to peace talks, to try to negotiate an end to hostilities. But they refuse to allow for peace unless we agree to turn a blind eye to any actions they take. That unless we are aiding them we cannot comment unfavourably on them. We feel that we cannot agree to such an agreement, since we feel we cannot let any organization not be monitored and be protected from ICDN intervention even if they threaten democracy or human rights. They say unless we agree to this we will go to war."

[Chuying]

"Is war against the IDSF actually being considered as an option? I'm not really understanding why we are even having conflicts with them, didn't we work together in a few conflicts in the past? I'm following the recent developments, but it's still not making any sense in regards to how it relates to the ICDN's mission."

"None of us want war with the IDSF, but they are threatening war with us. Southeast Marjarbia used to be a member of the ICDN, we were discussing a possible course of action regarding a war in Hun Chu. That is when Southeast Marjarbia intervened in that war, being a member of the ICDN the Secuirty Council condemned them to show the world that we did not endorse their actions and that they were not carrying out those actions on their behalf. They were infuriated at the condemnation, condemned the ICDN and left the ICDN. Along the way we sanctioned them, they threatened and sanctioned us, and that is how hostilities arose. We came to peace talks, to try to negotiate an end to hostilities. But they refuse to allow for peace unless we agree to turn a blind eye to any actions they take. That unless we are aiding them we cannot comment unfavourably on them. We feel that we cannot agree to such an agreement, since we feel we cannot let any organization not be monitored and be protected from ICDN intervention even if they threaten democracy or human rights. They say unless we agree to this we will go to war."

"The issue is; Southeast Marjarbia is no longer a member of our organization, we can't do anything to them unless there is a unanimous agreement among the Security Council, and their nation does have democracy so we have no reason to intervene in their affairs. I believe we should monitor the situation, but not respond until Southeast Marjarbia actually attacks another country or attacks the ICDN or other organizations directly. While we cannot allow their threats to continue, we cannot take action unless we have to defend ourselves or another country."

[Hopal]

"None of us want war with the IDSF, but they are threatening war with us. Southeast Marjarbia used to be a member of the ICDN, we were discussing a possible course of action regarding a war in Hun Chu. That is when Southeast Marjarbia intervened in that war, being a member of the ICDN the Secuirty Council condemned them to show the world that we did not endorse their actions and that they were not carrying out those actions on their behalf. They were infuriated at the condemnation, condemned the ICDN and left the ICDN. Along the way we sanctioned them, they threatened and sanctioned us, and that is how hostilities arose. We came to peace talks, to try to negotiate an end to hostilities. But they refuse to allow for peace unless we agree to turn a blind eye to any actions they take. That unless we are aiding them we cannot comment unfavourably on them. We feel that we cannot agree to such an agreement, since we feel we cannot let any organization not be monitored and be protected from ICDN intervention even if they threaten democracy or human rights. They say unless we agree to this we will go to war."

"The issue is; Southeast Marjarbia is no longer a member of our organization, we can't do anything to them unless there is a unanimous agreement among the Security Council, and their nation does have democracy so we have no reason to intervene in their affairs. I believe we should monitor the situation, but not respond until Southeast Marjarbia actually attacks another country or attacks the ICDN or other organizations directly. While we cannot allow their threats to continue, we cannot take action unless we have to defend ourselves or another country."

"I agree with you on that, but we cannot accept their proposal we cannot put any nation or organization exempt from our possible intervention. We cannot give them an opportunity to threaten democracy or human rights without us possibly intervening."

[Chuying]

"The issue is; Southeast Marjarbia is no longer a member of our organization, we can't do anything to them unless there is a unanimous agreement among the Security Council, and their nation does have democracy so we have no reason to intervene in their affairs. I believe we should monitor the situation, but not respond until Southeast Marjarbia actually attacks another country or attacks the ICDN or other organizations directly. While we cannot allow their threats to continue, we cannot take action unless we have to defend ourselves or another country."

"I agree with you on that, but we cannot accept their proposal we cannot put any nation or organization exempt from our possible intervention. We cannot give them an opportunity to threaten democracy or human rights without us possibly intervening."

"But they haven't done that yet, we should worry about that situation if it even happens at all. We can't force them to not do it, but we can punish any who do threaten it AFTER they commit such actions. The ICDN is losing sight of its mission, Chuying really hopes we get it back on track, I highly doubt that the founders of this organization are pleased either with how its going."

[Dalmannia]

"I agree with you on that, but we cannot accept their proposal we cannot put any nation or organization exempt from our possible intervention. We cannot give them an opportunity to threaten democracy or human rights without us possibly intervening."

"But they haven't done that yet, we should worry about that situation if it even happens at all. We can't force them to not do it, but we can punish any who do threaten it AFTER they commit such actions. The ICDN is losing sight of its mission, Chuying really hopes we get it back on track, I highly doubt that the founders of this organization are pleased either with how its going."

“As Dalmannia was one of the two founders, we can say that we are not pleased with the current situation in the least. There are too many war hawks threatening or infiltrating this organization. We must remain more vigilant than ever, and keep solidly to our principles. I suggest that we not make any more arguments with the IDSF. They’ve heard what we have to say. If they want war... then they’ll have to make the first move. We shouldn’t escalate defenses, make threats or make any movement towards war in the least. For now, we will let the IDSF sort its priorities out, and we’ll focus on the important housekeeping matters here at the ICDN. Such as the election for Ludistan’s seat. Challenging days are ahead of us, delegates, and we ought to ready ourselves to get to work. I also have to thank my fellow delegates from Hopal and Chuying. Mr. Pollin and Ms. Yeung, the both of you have been quite dedicated and conscientious of your actions. You have demonstrated that the two Security Council positions you occupy are in very good hands.”