[Mrgd291190]

I would like the GA to consider the possibility of introducing Summits to the format of the MUN.

These would be a general opportunity to debate on topics normally outside the “risk to international security” remit such as climate change, the economy and health. We could debate what’s in the news (H1N1), general topics (cybercrime), or revamp existing treaties (Kyoto, anyone?).

A Summit is any meeting between high-level government representatives...so our diplomatic representatives are perfect.

A Protocol (as in Kyoto or as in the ever-reliable Elders of Zion) is a log of the events of said meeting.


I made a list of possible topics in the “From the Desk...” thread, feel free to add to it. Peace ( Korea as a trial?); Pollution; Climate Change; The Recession; Economic Co-Operation; Border Security; Disease; Internet; Chemical Weaponry; R2P; Drugs; Prostitution; War Crimes...

We could use the six main committees for topics – Disarmament, Economic and Financial, Social, Humanitarian and Cultural and Decolonization. Maybe not Administrative, the MUN doesn’t cost and Legal could be dealt with by the possible Attorney General position. The Human Rights Council is one of the other most important ones. The Peacebuilding Commission is also something I’d like to investigate.
Other RL Committees include Torture, Discrimination against Women, Racial Discrimination, Palestine, Peaceful Use of Outer Space and Rights of the Child.

It wouldn’t result in a proper Resolution but we would create a Treaty or Agreement instead. If we amended an existing treaty, then a Revision of Extant Treaty might be a nice name.


A summit might be a good way to develop the links between MUN and HoC. Craghyrax posited the idea that HoC members could join as temporary members. We could really advertise on these as well, which I’m in the process of sorting out.

For Ratification purposes, we could ask the HoC to ratify them on behalf of the UK (I like the old process of the UK Rep coming from the HoC but with governmental problems in the HoC and us already having an excellent UK rep in Noémie, I don’t want to revisit it yet but perhaps in the future) by a popular vote. It’s actually the Queen in RL but on TSR we could move for a bill giving the MPs ratification powers but I’d need to talk to the Speaker.

For the rest of the countries, either the reps could do it or, especially for large treaties e.g. the Kyoto successor, we could have a general vote on TSR like with the General Election.

We could put time limits on the treaties, and sections dealing with sanctions if they’re broken. This would lead to further debate when a nation breaks the rules.

We could allow nations to back out if they give a month of notice to the GA.

We could limit them to a year, two, six months, until the SG leaves, until 3 months after the replacement of the SG, or could repeal them by a 3/2 or more split in the SC or 66% of the GA.

Many treaties suffer from the fact that there’s no verification provisions (for example with disarmament treaties) so we could try and find a way around that (and then e-mail the UN in New York and tell them how to deal with Iran ).

We could integrate UNOs into the proposal by asking that a relevant UNO bring up the matter first of all.

We could integrate Position Papers by a rule that the OP must be on a similar level to a PP.

It could be simply started by a rep e.g. the rep for the Czech Republic posting
“The Czech Republic considers that the issue of internet security has not be discussed enough by the international community and thus invites all nations’ representatives to a discussion on the matter in Prague in three days. BYOB.” Or something similar. Though a PP or something would be a good way to open the debate up as far as possible.


I think that’s everything that was in my head was I was brainstorming this, so I submit it to the GA and ask for your criticisms (constructive, please, be gentle), support, derision, queries and suggestions.

[DayneD89]

I'm up for it.

[gyyy2807]

I'm in favour. But, if any treaties do come about, will they be applied to RL events even though those treaties may not exist in RL? Or, would they only apply to hyps?

[marcusmerehay]

All sounds good to me.

[Mrgd291190]

Originally Posted by gyyy2807

I'm in favour. But, if any treaties do come about, will they be applied to RL events even though those treaties may not exist in RL? Or, would they only apply to hyps?

Fair point. I personally think we could apply them but we'd have to keep a close watch on things. One of the most confusing things I find in the HoC is when someone proposes a law that has already been dealt with on TSR but not in RL.

[Captain Biggles]

I like the idea of having dedicated Summits however I agree that it could be quite confusing when representatives try quoting treaties ratified in the MUN during RL debates. Although I think the outcome of Summits should apply in whole to the MUN (as it is a model, with the majority of debates coming from RL, granted). Perhaps this might be a bit forward-looking but it's all ideas for debate.

[DayneD89]

How about having a sticky of all passed MUN resolutions for referance? Its something i was planning for the HoC if i become speaker.

[Mrgd291190]

Great idea Dayne, mind if we steal it?

[DayneD89]

Not at all. wouldn't have suggested otherwise

[Radgebanter]

Sounds a good plan, i'd be in for any appropriate summits, and i'd be willing to use my UNO to introduce any topics if needed (cybercrime for example)

[Mrgd291190]

Dayne - Good man

Radge/Cameron - That'd be great. I'm thinking of holding one on Drugs and Crime soon, seeing as there's already two threads on it. I'd like to work with cybercrime as well, it's a fascinating subject.

[Radgebanter]

Originally Posted by Mrgd291190

Dayne - Good man

Radge/Cameron - That'd be great. I'm thinking of holding one on Drugs and Crime soon, seeing as there's already two threads on it. I'd like to work with cybercrime as well, it's a fascinating subject.

I'd be more than happy to work with you or anyone else for that matter to get a good summit on the go!

Ah yes, cybercrime is something that interests me greatly too

[Student2806]

I'm happy with this, although I agree with gyyy - we need a clear division between RL and what are essentially hypothetical summits.

[Captain Biggles]

Originally Posted by DayneD89

How about having a sticky of all passed MUN resolutions for referance? Its something i was planning for the HoC if i become speaker.

That's a brilliant idea. Perhaps we can categorise the resolutions in some manner (can't think of any suggestions!)?

[Mr FiX-iT]

I agree

[Birchington]

Great plan...

[Azzer]

Seems good!

[Craghyrax]

Originally Posted by Mrgd291190

We could integrate UNOs into the proposal by asking that a relevant UNO bring up the matter first of all.

This is one of the best benefits to the idea But I think its a very cool initiative overall

[MetalheadA7X]

Sounds like a good idea

[Mrgd291190]

Crag - Thought you'd like that bit It might be difficult to implement, especially if there isn't a particular UNO but we can figure it out.
Metalhead - Thanks