[thunder_chunky]

This is a re-vote (is that even a word?) of this resolution.

Resolution 2011/08: Concerning Democracy in the (M)UN MKII

Committee : Security Council
Proposed by : The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

Encouraged by the passing of Resolution 2011/03;
Noting the opinions expressed at the MUN Summit on Security Council Reform;
Further Noting the opinions expressed in the proposed Amendment regarding the Security Council;
Realising that due to the veto power and number of non perm seats means that all a non-perm member gains is the ability to debate in the SC with no additional voting power;
Expressing concern that the wishes of the many can, and are, overruled by the wishes of one or two nations;
Emphasizing the need for the General Assembly, rather than the Security Council alone, to become the main deliberative and representative organ of the (M)UN,

1. Calls for The MUN charter to be reformed so that in the case of a veto being used to block a resolution, any GA nation can call for a vote in that veto and if this vote gains a 2/3rds majority against said veto the veto shall be overturned;
2. Demands that India be admitted to the SC as a full member;
3. Further Demands that the non-perm SC seats be extended to 3 seats and that this extra non-perm seat recieves a veto power.

Notes

1. This will not effect votes in which the majority of the SC votes against the resolution, only in cases where it is blocked by a veto.
2. The use of the operative 'Demands' Means this will have to go to the SC, but it is the only way to make the SC larger. India is the second most populous country with over three times as many people as the third most populous nation. It is also one of the worlds fastest growing economies.
3. The current non-perms (well, only one atm, but this will soon change) were not elected in with a mandate to have a veto power, so I think it is only fair to do it this way. At the moment non-perms have very little power. Their votes mean nothing as if just one perm member votes no the resolution fails, while if all non-perms vote against they can't beat the perm members votes. This, along with no.1, gives some reason to have non-perm members as the GA can't overturn a no decision from the SC if the vote in the SC is 50%+1 against in the SC.

(Original post by DayneD89)
QFA

I would like to remind the GA that this vote is OUT OF CHARACTER which means you vote as yourself. You vote based on your personal opinion of this resolution, not as your character!

Please do not act in character for this.

[thunder_chunky]

Vote is up!

[AspiringGenius]

I know this may sound a little stupid, but what is a veto and what is it's purpose. I've heard it a few times but don't really understand it

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
I know this may sound a little stupid, but what is a veto and what is it's purpose. I've heard it a few times but don't really understand it

Here is the definition:

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=...w=1078&bih=757

Basically you can overturn or overrule a resolution if you so wish.

[AspiringGenius]

wow it must be irritating when someone vetoes a resolution.

Thank god this one is out of character...

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
wow it must be irritating when someone vetoes a resolution.

Thank god this one is out of character...

Well it doesn't happen often, which is good. It wouldn't be any fun if it happened to often

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Well it doesn't happen often, which is good. It wouldn't be any fun if it happened to often

I promise to only use it in extreme cases. I can imagine the person who vetoes can become very unpopular.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
I promise to only use it in extreme cases. I can imagine the person who vetoes can become very unpopular.

No I wouldn't say unpopular unless you had no reason at all. I would say generally you would need a pretty good reason in the first place though, just to be sure

[Rakas21]

Why do we have abstain rather than RON?

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Why do we have abstain rather than RON?

RON is only for elections.
For resolutions you can't Re-Open Nominations for a resolution

[Rakas21]

Shame, that is the option i would have prefered.

As a duel rep, do i get 2 votes in this?

[Ethereal]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Why do we have abstain rather than RON?

(Original post by Rakas21)
Shame, that is the option i would have prefered.

As a duel rep, do i get 2 votes in this?

How can you prefer to re-open nominations when nominations have not happened?

No, you get 1 vote because this entire thread is out of character

[Ethereal]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
I know this may sound a little stupid, but what is a veto and what is it's purpose. I've heard it a few times but don't really understand it

It is something the security council members have because they are (?were?) the biggest players in international relations and shouldn't be forced to do something contrary to their security/the security of their allies.

In the real life UN, for example, America will veto resolutions which demand Israel withdraw from all occupied territory

[thunder_chunky]

Just a reminder, all debate and votes are out of character. You debate and vote as yourself, not as your chosen country!

[jakemittle]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Just a reminder, all debate and votes are out of character. You debate and vote as yourself, not as your chosen country!

I bet you'll still get people voting in character ;?

[Ethereal]

(Original post by jakemittle)
I bet you'll still get people voting in character ;?

It does seem that some people, despite being told many times, still think this is IC.

Also worrying is the "what is the veto?" question

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Ethereal)
It does seem that some people, despite being told many times, still think this is IC.

Also worrying is the "what is the veto?" question

I'll be sending out an update today, I'll break it all down in that.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Ethereal)
It does seem that some people, despite being told many times, still think this is IC.

Also worrying is the "what is the veto?" question

Sorry, I had never come across it's meaning before I know now and that's the important thing though.

[Ethereal]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Sorry, I had never come across it's meaning before I know now and that's the important thing though.

That wasn't a comment about you specifically, more that so quickly after so many inexperienced members join we're considering changing something so fundamental which is probably not fully understood by a lot of them especially when the fact that people still think this is in chracter despite being told repeatedly it isn't.

This idea is a badly thought out, populist idea which will appeal to new and inexperienced reps who do not like the "power" of the perm-sc without understanding the rationale for it. It will cause an increase in voting on an issue as reps will inevitably demand a veto-veto on their own resolutions when they are vetoed by the sc.

I fail to see how this can be properly addressed so soon into a new MUN and can see no good at all coming from it.

[jakemittle]

(Original post by Ethereal)
That wasn't a comment about you specifically, more that so quickly after so many inexperienced members join we're considering changing something so fundamental which is probably not fully understood by a lot of them especially when the fact that people still think this is in chracter despite being told repeatedly it isn't.

This idea is a badly thought out, populist idea which will appeal to new and inexperienced reps who do not like the "power" of the perm-sc without understanding the rationale for it. It will cause an increase in voting on an issue as reps will inevitably demand a veto-veto on their own resolutions when they are vetoed by the sc.

I fail to see how this can be properly addressed so soon into a new MUN and can see no good at all coming from it.

But isnt it good to throw some people into the deep end?
Have fresh faces ruling on things? etc?