Attorney General Role - Vote

A period of 3 days of voting will now commence.

Reform

Recognising that the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities can sometimes bit a bit unclear
Noting that this leaves the Attorney General and the community at large looking for answers
Advocating that the follow definition be used to define the Attorney General's role in future.

Duties

•

Act as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for the Model United Nations.

•

Step in as Secretary General if both the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General are away.

•

May hold a position as a minor nation but may not hold a Power Five or Security Council seat.

•

Will have the responsibility for working with the secretary general to try and bring about a reformation plan for the EU and Arab blocks.

•

If the EU and Arab blocks are successfully reformed will assist in monitoring them and will help with the formation of any other potential blocks such as the African Union.

•

Will work with the MUN to communicate with the MHoC government on matters where it would be of benefit to the MUN to discuss an issue they are dealing with however neither the AG nor the result of the MUN discussion obviously will not have any input in the MHoC matters.

•

Working with the SG and fellow representatives to help bring about position papers and summits that are engaging for the widest section of the MUN community.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Qwertish

No. The role in this form is far too broad.

Reply 2

toronto353

No for the reasons stated in the previous thread. I urge everyone to vote this resolution down.

Reply 3

meenu89

I have voted 'No'. If given the choice I would probably get rid of this post.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

Morgsie

Please think before voting on this rather than listening to the previous posters.

Either way I will continue

Reply 5

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

Please think before voting on this rather than listening to the previous posters.

Either way I will continue

We are simply putting a view point forward Morgsie and members of the MUN have every right to put forward their views in relation to the MUN. As I see it, this resolution is wrong for the MUN and I think reflects a problem throughout the MUN which is that we seek to complicate the MUN and create too many 'leadership' style figures within the forum. The sensible position, I believe, is to reduce the AG to a role equivalent to a UNO and reduce the bureaucracy which this resolution leads to.

Reply 6

meenu89

Original post by Morgsie

Please think before voting on this rather than listening to the previous posters.

Either way I will continue

Are you trying to say that the people who have voted No haven't thought about their decision?

Reply 7

Morgsie

Original post by toronto353

It is not bureaucracy but making the role more relevant to this place. I don't agree with dissolving this role or reducing it. Yes It does need to be redifined, I had an input and stressed the legal side of things

Reply 8

Morgsie

Original post by meenu89

Are you trying to say that the people who have voted No haven't thought about their decision?

I am saying people should think about this before voting rather than jumping on the NO bandwagon.

Reply 9

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

Of course it's bureaucracy - your role being given more duties requires more rules and hence more bureaucracy. Of course you don't want it reduced, but we don't need a series of mini-SGs in the MUN. Making your role a UNO equivalent focusing on the legal side of things is clear, concise and what your role should be. The MUN needs simplifying and this is one small step on that path.

Original post by Morgsie

I am saying people should think about this before voting rather than jumping on the NO bandwagon.

Nobody is jumping on a bandwagon. I have argued a point consistently and clearly and the fact that those arguments have chimed with a lot of people is not them jumping on the bandwagon, but them thinking clearly about the arguments. The people whom you accuse of jumping on the band wagon are the same people who elected you to your role. You trusted them to do the right thing by the MUN then, why not now?

Reply 10

Morgsie

I have been concentrating on the legal stuff which will still be in tact with a few more bits added. I can handle it.

Don't use the election card because looked what happened recently.

Reply 11

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

I have been concentrating on the legal stuff which will still be in tact with a few more bits added. I can handle it.

Don't use the election card because looked what happened recently.

The question isn't whether you can handle it - the question is whether it's right to add these elements to the AG role and personally I don't believe it is. The debate is about the role alone.

I think that the election argument is important. You can't trust the people when results go your way and then when they vote against you, believe that they're jumping on the bandwagon.

Reply 12

Morgsie

Original post by toronto353

When I saw the proposal I was shocked but I insisted on the legal stuff. The person who proposed is not here to explain why. I only know about the legal side. Does not help when a joke is endorsed by someone who later regrets it

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

cl_steele

Abstained on this one, ive never seen the AG do anything and i doubt given any new powers he could do much more so i metephorically speaking throw in the towel on this one.

Reply 14

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

Then why aren't you joining me in urging people to vote down this resolution? Surely if you insisted on the legal stuff, you would be favouring my alternative proposal to reduce your role to that of a UNO rather than vastly increasing your powers?

Reply 15

Morgsie

Original post by toronto353

Because it is a Leadership position all bit differently compared to the SG and DSG which has not been recognized

Reply 16

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

Because it is a Leadership position all bit differently compared to the SG and DSG which has not been recognized

But you yourself admit that you only want the legal side of the AG, so why not reduce it? After all, it doesn't have the perception of a leadership position within the MUN. The AG seemingly functions as any other state/ UNO does.

Reply 17

Morgsie

Original post by toronto353

Let me repeat what I said, I insisted that the legal stuff should be the core of the work. I did not propose the other stuff, I hope that the rationale is clarified. I was consulted just before it was placed on the agenda, I was not involved from the get go. Rather than going after me, target TMD when he is back.

It works both ways, people come to me and vice versa. So far it has been me being active, not people coming to with concerns etc

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 18

toronto353

Original post by Morgsie

Let me repeat what I said, I insisted that the legal stuff should be the core of the work. I did not propose the other stuff, I hope that the rationale is clarified. I was consulted just before it was placed on the agenda, I was not involved from the get go.

It works both ways, people come to me and vice versa. So far it has been me being active, not people coming to with concerns etc

So let's vote down this resolution and clarify the legal aspect of the role. Giving the AG role more powers doesn't actually clarify the legal element of the AG role, it just makes the AG into the SG lite which is the wrong way for the MUN to go.

If people aren't coming to you with legal concerns, does it not suggest that the role isn't fit for purpose as it currently stands and that it would be better reducing the AG role allowing you to produce reports as the AG without the extra stuff?