WE HAVE MOVED. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE NEW FORUM!
Please note that this forum is now archived, and some links may not work. To access forums, please click on the text above the banner and NOT the banner itself. If you have any questions please contact CGJ
|
|
|
|
|
Claim your spot on the map Join the Regional Assembly Check out the Hall of Guidance Get involved in some Open Roleplays |
Time until The Independent Order's Fourth Birthday: |
Vice Chancellor: CGJ Premier: DaveIronside Vice Premier: SatanLord Minister for Home Affairs: Yolotan Minister for Foreign Affairs: Tama Speaker of the Assembly: Zee Lord Chief Justice: Achkaerin Roleplay Moderator: DaveIronside |
None Debates: Roleplay Realism Buff Act Request for an Inquiry into the use of mass-alts in the Z-Day episode |
| Welcome to the Independent Order Archive. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. If you previously had an account on the forum, then feel free to login. If you're new, please note we have moved to a new forum and have left this forum here to serve as an archive. |
| DEBATE - Admission Procedures | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: 20th December 2015 - 10:34 PM (1,246 Views) | ||||
| NordicPeoples | 20th December 2015 - 10:34 PM Post #1 | |||
![]()
|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUBMISSION FORM Formal Name of Submitting Nation(s): Holy Empire of Achkaerin Nations involved: All CTO Members Title of Submission: A motion to establish a procedure for admitting member nations. Draft Resolution:
[1] OOC- Under Article 4 they're supposed to though I doubt an SC discussion thread will actually be necessary so SC members should do this by PM if possible. Edited by NordicPeoples, 20th December 2015 - 10:35 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 07:49 AM Post #2 | |||
![]()
|
"Lakhzovia would like to see the inclusion of a set of eligibility criteria that must be fulfilled prior to a nation being considered for membership. We propose as a start a recognition threshold that would prevent nations with near non-existent legitimacy in the eyes of the international community being admitted through abuse of process which the current draft of the resolution allows. As currently presented this resolution would allow nations with very little legitimate claim to be a sovereign nation to be admitted to the organisation on the strength of advocacy and a simple majority vote. This system in which the GA is to be provided with a recommendation from the SC and then a debate between advocates amounts in essence to a form of court, and just as with judicial courts such a system would be open to miscarriage of justice or in the case of the proposed mechanism the admittance of destabilising and contentious entities. We feel that if the issue of what exactly determines sovereignty for the purposes of this organisations admission process is not resolved in this document then the resolution is fundamentally flawed and shouldn't see the light of day." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 05:27 PM Post #3 | |||
![]()
|
"The resolution clearly states "Understanding That meeting the legal definition of a sovereign state qualifies a nation to apply for membership of the Commonwealth Treaty Organisation" therefore there is no prospect of a nation that does not meet said criteria being brought to an admission debate. As for the criteria that amounts to sovereignty that is ownership of land, exercise of rule of law over that land and an existing governmental system in place." |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 05:58 PM Post #4 | |||
![]()
|
"And who set those criteria? They are not contained in the CTO Charter, so is this yet again a case of Achkaerin insisting that the CTO accept their own legal opinion as axiomatic? I am confident that we are not alone in our concerns regarding the lack of clearly stated membership criteria, and that concern stems from the possibility of exactly this type of situation. In the absence of clear criteria the legal basis for admitting contentious cases is undermined. We are attempting here to plug the holes left gaping since the organisations foundation, an open debate and vote in the general assembly is an entirely acceptable means by which to come to satisfactorily resolve these uncertainties and of course you are free to make known Achkaerin's legal opinion and fight for your interpretation to be enshrined at the CTO. What you are not free to do is insist that your legal opinion is the only valid one and try to railroad the entire organisation into blind acceptance of your position... One has to wonder how far this is at the insistence of the Achkaerin government and how much of it revolves around the personal professional pride of the Achkaerin delegates. Again Lakhzovia implores the Achkaerinese delegation to this organisation to cease their patronising and haughty attitude towards the other nations assembled here." Edited by Astetoth, 21st December 2015 - 05:59 PM.
|
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 06:12 PM Post #5 | |||
![]()
|
You seem to suggest that we are ramming our own opinion down everyone's throat. I beg to differ, the question is what makes a country a country? Common sense answers that a nation cannot be a nation without land, without government and without the ability to rule that land with law, I think you'll find that nations here support that understanding. If you have an issue with the definition of what makes a nation sovereign then you are welcome to seek the opinion of the ICJ. You also operate under another misconception this is not just for contentious cases this is for every membership application. The process is fair and it is sound." OOC- I will note that while ICly this will only ever get a run out in situations such as Borland if passed this would be the assumed procedure for every nation that joins. |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 06:42 PM Post #6 | |||
![]()
|
OOC: Yeah aware of that, and for the majority of countries that join the question of recognition will not be an issue really, it would only be an obstacle in contentious cases where an applicant is only recognised by a tiny minority of countries. | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 06:45 PM Post #7 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- which is the purpose of the meeting legal definition criteria now I would assume that the actual dictionary definition would apply here (the whole point of that criteria)- "Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations." |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 07:16 PM Post #8 | |||
![]()
|
"I see that your legal opinion follows the declarative theory of state, and so we come to the kernel of the issue. You view the world through the prism of your pre-existing understanding of matters of statehood, an understanding which has been influenced by the social, political and legal history of your nation. However Lakhzovia, and I'm sure others fall in to the same category, holds to the constitutive theory of state, and we would argue that while International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law. You need to not make the assumption that every nation in this organisation shares your legal cultures basic assumptions. This forum provides us with an opportunity, given the fact that there are fundamentally differing views in this organisation regarding what constitutes true sovereignty we should use this as an opportunity to find a definition and set of criteria that can broadly be agreed on. There were always going to be challenges when nations with differing legal traditions attempt to work together in a democratic venue, we should all recognise the danger of friction when it comes to nuanced issues and work constructively with each other, not simply attempt to shutdown opposition with barely concealed disdain." Edited by Astetoth, 21st December 2015 - 07:17 PM.
|
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 07:40 PM Post #9 | |||
![]()
|
"While I respect the various different view points in terms of legal interpretation, international organisations however cannot function on subjective interpretation of matters such as sovereignty they need an objective interpretation and that is best served through something that is already defined and that is a legal standpoint not ignorance of recognition because as you have rightly illustrated that is divisive, there can be no argument if you put an applicant nation's characteristics up against an accepted definition of sovereignty as to whether or not a nation is that or not. If a nation meets the legal requirement for sovereignty then it can apply to join the CTO, the debate on admitting the applicant nation allows for issues of morality to be presented and discussed and those are the only reasons that nations choose to ignore the sovereignty of another. If there is an issue of morality that in the opinion of nations who take the view similar to Lakhzovia then the opportunity is there to vote it down when the debate on membership is brought to vote." |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 08:58 PM Post #10 | |||
![]()
|
"Having a criteria setting a recognition threshold provides an objective metric by which to determine whether an applicant should be eligible for entry, and need I remind you that it would be far less divisive to bring forward applications of nations recognised by a majority of the membership than it is to present them on the basis of the flimsiest de jure statehood. To illustrate my point the Borland resolution would not have caused the division it has if at the time of the resolution being brought Borland had been recognised by the majority of the Assembled nations, that is so self-evident I would have thought it needn't have been said, but clearly it must. We have two proposed mechanism here, one which will allow any pseudo-state with a contrived claim to legal sovereignty to submit an application, that will then trigger a divisive debate in the assembly, the fallout of which could have significant consequences for the future. We have another which only allows an aspiring member apply once they have reached a set level of international recognition, this means an applicant is only submitted for decision once they are in a position to actually join the international community. This means that aspiring members will have to seek recognition through the building of relations and conformity to international norms of conduct, in this way such a criteria for eligibility would provide an impetus for improvement. Further it will prevent groups seeking a backdoor to legitimacy from hijacking the CTO, as joining would require a genuine commitment to international rapprochement any entity not genuinely committed to such a path would be deterred. I think it is clear which is preferable, I of course am interested to know what others think. Do you prefer a mechanism which guarantees divisive debates or one that provides an incentive to international cooperation?" |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 09:15 PM Post #11 | |||
![]()
|
"You do not establish an objective metric by determining whether or not a nation is sovereign based on subjective aspects that is fundamentally obvious. You seek with the Borland issue to say that Borland is not sovereign, yet they meet the legal definition of sovereignty in every way. So therefore the only reason you deny them sovereignty is because of who the leadership is- specifically a terrorist organisation that commits criminal activities, sovereignty does not and cannot be dependent on the who the second you do that you turn applications for memberships into another skewed process and there have already been more than enough of those. By that argument the USR under Stalin would fail the process, Zachachevania under first Rosocor and now Fetu would fail the process yet both are considered sovereign nations despite having monsters for leaders do you now seek to challenge the internationally accepted fact that they were such nations? The legal definition is the appropriate criteria to set as the standard, if you start applying criteria beyond that then you run counter to the ethos of this organisation. You cannot put anything else on there without risking breaches of other international treaties." |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 21st December 2015 - 09:30 PM Post #12 | |||
![]()
|
"The leaders of those nations may have been monsters but did, or does any nation not recognise their sovereignty? The vast majority of the nations on Mundus recognise the sovereignty of the nations in question and therefore they would pass the threshold. In fact you have illustrated perfectly with those examples just how much scare mongering your argument is. There are further questions in regards to Borland than simply their leadership. There is the question of whether the sale of territory to a terrorist organisation constitutes the formation of a sovereign nation, Lakhzovia does not feel so and for this reason, not just the nature of the regime, we refuse to recognise their claim to sovereignty. It is our opinion that Zimalia remains responsible and liable for the actions of the Borlanders within their territory. Allow me to present some scenarios. What if Emetist fundamentalists in Lakhzovia bought a parcel of land on our border and used it to launch attacks against our neighboring state. Say in this hypothetical situation we decided to recognise them as a separate sovereign state to avoid legal ramifications on a technicality of international law. We are supposed to accept that in such a situation this farce of a state should be considered a legal sovereign entity entitled to seek membership with the CTO. Apologies for the reductio ad absurdum but what you propose is frankly absurd, and more than that it is potentially dangerous." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 21st December 2015 - 09:57 PM Post #13 | |||
![]()
|
"It is not a scaremonger it is an objective and logical argument. Consider for a moment your approach, you are setting the bar far too high for any prospective applicant you will do no nation any good by making it near impossible for a nation to join. In fact you will do this organisation more harm by suggesting a divisive approach. Now this is not about Borland but the facts on that are clear Zimalia sold Borland land, Zimalia then stated that they were transferring sovereign rights over that territory to Borland. Now the fact that in that case it is Zimalia making that statement is more than enough evidence that Borland is a sovereign nation, if Borland had made that statement and Zimalia had stayed silent then I would have questioned it. Now do you see the divisive nature of your proposal? Your way means having a debate as to legitimacy before the debate as to membership and that is a waste of time, energy and is frankly absurd. Far better to put the legal definition as a minimum and if there is an issue over legitimacy or something else it can be raised when the debate for membership comes or do you have so little faith in this assembly's ability? And as for your example, sorry but the answer is yes you would have to entertain that and in your example it would be your own stupid fault because you were foolish enough to give the sovereign rights over. This organisation is open to every nation or it runs contrary to its own charter and ethos. Now the fact that you want to be able to bang your chest and stand shoulder to shoulder with other nations and say 'we don't want for example Borland in the CTO' is commendable but there is a time and place to make that argument and that is in a membership debate- that is where issues as to morality such as the ones you raise should be heard, we create more problems when we start creating more hoops for people to jump through." |
|||
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 27th December 2015 - 08:59 PM Post #14 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- Well seeing as this has come to a stand still I'm assuming that unless anyone says otherwise we'll move this to a vote in the original format on 29th December 10pm UK time | |||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 2nd January 2016 - 08:44 AM Post #15 | |||
![]()
|
"Lakhzovia demands that our proposed amendment be considered prior to any vote on the base resolution. If our concerns are ignored and the resolution goes to vote as is it will be the final signal that the CTO is little more than the personal project of a select few, in such a case we would be forced to reconsider our membership of the organisation." | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Beatrice | 2nd January 2016 - 09:20 AM Post #16 | |||
![]()
|
"Rokkenjima seconds the Lakhzovian request and asks for further discussion and consideration of the proposed Amendment before this Resolution is moved to vote. We have several important considerations to make, especially in a matter which will impact the Commonwealth in many fundamental ways. We must ensure that all views and approaches receive equal time and consideration on the floor of the General Assembly, to ensure that each voice is taken into due consideration. I trust that the Lakhzovian proposal will receive such consideration before we move to vote." | |||
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 2nd January 2016 - 04:08 PM Post #17 | |||
![]()
|
OOC - Happy to allow more debate, just as we'd come to a halt in terms of discussion I thought it best to try moving it forward. I'm however not able to find what amendment your talking about, if someone points it out to me I'll try and amend it & we can vote on it. | |||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 2nd January 2016 - 04:40 PM Post #18 | |||
![]()
|
OOC: I'll draft a formal amendment this eve, | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 2nd January 2016 - 04:44 PM Post #19 | |||
![]()
|
"The process to admit must be fair and universally applicable. If I ask- in fact I will ask the question what makes a nation sovereign? The answer is simple it is ownership of land with the right to rule over that land therefore implying the rule of law. That is sovereignty and a nation that meets that is surely able to apply for membership in this organisation, the fact that Lakhzovia and with surprise Rokkenjima's support seeks to move from the fairness and objectiveness of the legal approach to a subjective discriminatory approach is frankly concerning. The process to admit must have a list of criteria that defines sovereignty such criteria can be found when the matter is considered in a legal context if we start asking each member whether nation X is sovereign or not then we quite simply open the doors to a lot of lawsuits in the ICJ as prejudice allegations will abound. Now I am happy to hear a detailed explanation of the Lakhzovian proposal but I cannot see how it does anything other than throw subjective obstacles in the way and cause more problems than it solves." |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 3rd January 2016 - 11:53 AM Post #20 | |||
![]()
|
"I have to say I admire your ability to repeat the same words like a broken record with the expectation that they somehow will have a different impact than before. I'm afraid however that I must repeat my previous point, namely that you are making a statement of your own nation's legal opinion regarding sovereignty. Certainly your nation has the right to come to determinations of sovereignty based on your own views regarding what constitutes sovereignty, but as that is a large part of the current question, what exactly constitutes sovereignty for the purposes of admission to the CTO, you can not expect that your nation's legal opinion should be accepted without question. You consistently refuse to appreciate or accept that other nations have an equal right to determine the basis on which to recognise an entity as sovereign, your attempts to force a resolution in which a single legal interpretation, namely Achkaerin's, will become the international standard is in effect an attempt to impinge on the sovereignty of nations who happen to follow a different school of legal thought. With that said allow me to present our amendment. We have tried to retain the majority of the resolution unchanged as a means to compromise, and as foreign a concept as that is to you I should hope that you can see past the end of your own nose and recognise the benefit of what we are proposing."
Edited by Astetoth, 3rd January 2016 - 11:54 AM.
|
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 3rd January 2016 - 01:32 PM Post #21 | |||
![]()
|
"Then perhaps you would explain on what basis that is a benefit." Cheryl said "Because all I see there is a needless and pointless complication not to mention an attempt to put this organisation in a position it should not be in. There is a common legal concept called Caveat Emptor or let the buyer beware, it establishes that the buyer of for example a house or even a piece of land cannot hold the seller liable for any faults or damage discovered that the buyer had ample opportunity to check for. Conversely I like to think about et qui vendit non dixerit cavendum or let the seller beware which is the opposite the seller cannot hold the buyer liable. I make this explanation in an attempt to point out the needless nature of the spirit of the proposed amendment. If a nation is foolish enough to sell land to a group of people and then have the continuing foolishness to transfer sovereignty rights to the land sold then the nation who makes the sale has no right to complain, that you wish to build in a safeguard is not only convoluted it is also in the case of this particular attempt dangerous. The only question for the General Assembly when it comes to the admission of a new member should be 'Do we admit nation X to the Commonwealth Treaty Organisation?' now in addition to that quite fair question we now have before us a proposed amendment that seeks to add the following question 'is nation X sovereign?' It is not the place of the Commonwealth Treaty Organisation to attribute sovereignty this is a point made clear early on in the Borland debate by Mr Appleby of Tytor. So let's be hypothetical again let's say that a nation has everything stated in the amendment and therefore meets the legal criteria for sovereignty and the CTO membership then proceeds to vote no when asked about the applicants sovereignty in doing so the CTO regardless of how the vote is split is effectively saying to a nation that meets the legal standard under international law, the same standard that the ICJ uses that 'we're very sorry but despite you meeting the legal criteria we don't think you're a sovereign nation' Do you have any idea how offensive that is going to be to the applicant? In saying that they aren't sovereign you effectively say they aren't a country and that their citizens are not in fact citizens of that country thus becoming refugee's at the drop of a hat. This is why we put the legal definition as the minimum for application it is an objective standard, remember application does not equate to admission and I have said before if a nation has a concern over sovereignty then when the vote to admit the nation that is the source of the concern is put then you may vote against the admission at that point. The amendment is preposterous, it not only runs counter to the all inclusive ethos of this organisation but it risks alienating potential members and in the long term making the mission of this organisation several times more difficult than otherwise need be the case. This chamber is not a court so it should in no way behave like one, we do not have the power to attribute sovereignty nor should we ever assume that we do have it, our duty when it comes to the admission of members is to vote in accordance with whether or not they should be admitted to the organisation that is our remit. To pass the amended form of the resolution is to turn this organisation into something it should not be. I therefore resist the amendment." |
|||
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 4th January 2016 - 06:31 PM Post #22 | |||
![]()
|
"With us once again having two resolutions now for the same process, and each being seen as unappealing by nations I believe that perhaps the only way forward we have is to ask members to choose between the two." | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 4th January 2016 - 06:38 PM Post #23 | |||
![]()
|
"That may well be the case madame Secretary General but let us first seek the answer to the major question." Cheryl said, she then turned her gaze on the Lakhzovian delegate. "Mr Hokh. Let us suppose for a moment that we pass your amendment and that we have a nation apply to the organisation for membership now if said nation meets the criteria laid out in point 1(i) to point 1(iv) it not only meets the legal requirement to be sovereign but covers all the bases associated with sovereignty- if a nation meets the criteria of those points,which if I understand the amendment correctly it would have to do prior to any vote on sovereignty recognition, would you please enlighten us as to under those circumstances precisely what ground would be acceptable as a reason to refuse acknowledgement of sovereignty? Because to just say 'no we don't accept you as a sovereign nation' is highly unacceptable." |
|||
| ||||
| DaveIronside | 4th January 2016 - 06:49 PM Post #24 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
"I believe there is also an issue with the appendix issue, the Mundus Covnention on Universal Rights contains the statement "all independent sovereign states" therefore to sign that document and your signature upon it carry any weight you must be a sovereign state, therefore what we are saying is to a nation is that we don't recognise you as a sovereign state but we do recognise you as a sovereign state." | |||
| ||||
| CGJ | 5th January 2016 - 05:49 AM Post #25 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
"While it would be amusing to see the doublethink of 'we don't recognise you as a sovereign state but we do recognise you as a sovereign state', as mentioned by my colleague from East Moreland, we do also believe Annex I should be stripped from this proposal. Based on the most recent proposal by Lakhzovia, this is a slightly amended draft incorporating elements of the Achkaerin resolution and our own amendments." (OOC: I don't mean to make ANOTHER copy of this never-ending debate, but eh)
|
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 5th January 2016 - 08:07 AM Post #26 | |||
![]()
|
"Lakhzovia is willing to strip the annex, it was a compromise gesture that we are happy to leave out." Turning to the Achkaerin delegate and finally having had enough he let rip "You know. It occurs to me that this is the perfect example of your petty obstructionism. You slam down your sneering question as if you have made some great game ending move. Listen here you fool because I am only going to point out your stupidity this one last time. Your very own proposal would essentially do the exact thing you criticise ours for. After all yours works from the basic assumption that any nation that meets points i-iv. is sovereign and therefore should be voted on by the assembly which has the power, unless you envision the General Assembly as a mere rubber stamp, to reject the application. How is this not the exact same situation as you accuse our resolution of creating? You are either an idiot your genuinely cannot see past the end of your own nose or you are being deliberately obstructive and willing to engage in vulgar hypocrisy in order to carry the day. We would point out that our resolution intends to establish the basis on which sovereignty is recognised by the CTO, this would naturally include i-iv and in accordance with the constitutive theory of state v. is the other criterion. Again we are back in the situation where you appear to be incapable of understanding that not everyone accepts your own opinions as axioms. Now look your objection, your 'trump card' is no such thing. Your resolution would create the exact same situation, in fact probably worse because your resolution would essentially state that a nation is recognised as completely sovereign by the CTO and yet able to be rejected if they do not control sufficient support in the General Assembly, the resolution we have proposed basically states that a nation is not recognised as being truly sovereign for the purposes of CTO membership until a majority of existing members have recognised them. To conclude we have proposed a resolution which prevents this organisation being hijacked for propaganda purposes, the resolution is fair and it is universal. It is based on cooperation and international recognition and is aimed at producing a resilient and stable CTO. The mechanism for recognition would provide an incentive to aspiring members to normalise relations in order to win the necessary recognition to join the organisation and this in itself would either encourage good behaviour or deter those who would use the organisation for their own schemes. On the other hand we have Achkaerin's proposal which essentially states that the CTO and all its members accept their particular strain of declarative theory of recognition followed by a compulsory debate, set up more like a court, in the General Assembly followed by a vote which could bizarrely reject a sovereign state. This proposal is junk, it is; to put it as politely as it deserves, Shite. It provides nothing but the grounds for dispute and emnity. It hands nefarious groups the power to use the CTO for propaganda and weakens the organisation itself. Achkaerin's resolution should NEVER see the light of day, it was born in the confused darkness of the honorable gentleman's head and that is where it should have remained." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 5th January 2016 - 05:09 PM Post #27 | |||
![]()
|
"Oh for the love of the Gods." Cheryl said "The Lakhzovian resolution in its present form is ill thought, ill planned, absurd and quite frankly would be subject to legal challenge from every single applicant who meets 1(i) to 1(iv) but fails 1(v). Let's be clear I asked you a perfectly simple question- if 1(i)-1(iv) are met what ground would you then refuse to recognize a nation as sovereign for? Because land is accounted for, government is accounted for, population is accounted for, policy making is accounted for. All these things are an objective standard here recognized by every nation as the basis of sovereignty. If a nation meets that criteria then they are sovereign and there is no need for a vote centered around whether the said nation should be recognized as sovereign. In terms of recognition of sovereignty the CTO does not exist to determine sovereignty that notion is entirely ridiculous you merely want to be able to say that because a nation has a specific person in charge that the nation itself is not sovereign, you want to be able to use this organisation to safeguard your own national interests in regards to an Utman state well that is not what this chamber is for we are not a court of law and we are not a legislative body we are a body that express's opinions, if we have a nation that exists as a result of sale of land and transfer of sovereign rights then there are any number of documents that can be provided by the selling nation to prove that it is legitimate and that should be more than satisfactory for the international community. WAKE the hell up, by your standard we would be in the world of saying that Zachachevania is not a sovereign nation because Fetu leads it, that due to the Earagon Genocide that the USR led by Stalin was not a sovereign nation, that the coup in Tytor rendered it a non-sovereign nation and there are many more examples. The fact is that the matter of individual leadership within a nation is a matter of morality not legality. Matters of morality belong in the admittance vote itself and if you wish to say that a nation should not be a CTO member because of who leads it then that is when you vote against them. To use such subjective criteria as part of a sovereignty checklist is unworkable and will accomplish nothing, if you actually had the capability to see the bigger picture you would come to understand how 'contentious' nations as you put it being sovereign is actually to the benefit of the international community. As far as I am concerned the Lakhzovian resolution is not sound but it can be made sound if point 1(v) is removed, it is vital for the consistency of the organisation that the criteria for sovereignty be stated as a checklist and that is 1(i) to 1(iv), point 1(v) adds a ballot that should not exist it takes this chamber into waters that it should not venture into. The Annex could be scrapped or it could stay in a modified form if instead of failing the sovereignty vote we change it to options for nations that fail the admission vote. The way forward is obvious since you refuse to answer a very straightforward question dispense with the sovereignty vote and you have a workable resolution with an objective criteria to determine who may and may not apply for membership. However to be fair I will ask again- if an applicant nation under your amendment meets the criteria outlined in points 1(i) to 1(iv) what grounds are you suggesting are possible for voting to refuse sovereignty recognition under point 1(v)?" |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 5th January 2016 - 06:05 PM Post #28 | |||
![]()
|
"Clearly I overestimated your intelligence. I told you that I will not be repeating again our position; which despite your inability to understand it, is perfectly sound. Clearly you are not amenable to any sort of compromise, therefore I would suggest that annex 1 be stripped and a vote be held. We see little reason to continue with this farcical debate." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 5th January 2016 - 06:34 PM Post #29 | |||
![]()
|
"You have not answered the question put again..." Cheryl said "I'm very amenable to compromise but the compromise has to make sense. Let's compare two nations shall we? How about Borland and Lakhzovia? Do they meet your criteria? Well yes they both meet criteria 1(i) through 1(iv) with ease meaning that they would both only have to clear 1(v) now clearly Lahkzovia is sovereign so this begs the inevitable game of spot the difference- question: what is the difference between Borland and any nation represented in this chamber? Answer the individuals that make up the government of said nation in the case of Borland are viewed by the majority of the international community including every nation in this room as terrorists. However does that make that nation any less sovereign than Lakhzovia? No it does not. So you will state now the reasons under which a nation that meets 1(i) to 1(iv) of your proposed criteria may be refused under 1(v) precisely and clearly so that it is on record otherwise you only confirm the prejudicial nature of your proposed amendment." Edited by Achkaerin, 5th January 2016 - 06:34 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| CGJ | 5th January 2016 - 10:51 PM Post #30 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
The Dartfordian delegate watched with some frustration as the argument between the others spiralled into a slanging match. "Alright guys," he mumbled, glancing down at the proposal he had outlined only minutes earlier, "if I wanted my opinions ignored I'd have gone to my mother-in-laws house. Could we stop trying to screw corkscrews into each other's assholes and actually get on with approving a version of the admissions resolution? We have moved on from the strict Lakhzovian version, so could we perhaps discuss the new proposal?" | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 5th January 2016 - 10:55 PM Post #31 | |||
![]()
|
"The Dartfordian proposal is in fact sound, it keeps the integrity of the organisation intact and retains its purpose. The only issue is as I have already said is that this chamber is not a court of law, the ICJ is far better positioned to determine ownership of conflicting claims over such territory as specified I would therefore suggest as it is the legal body with the people that have the appropriate expertise that the ICJ and not the General Assembly make that decision. Additionally as it's in both the base resolution we submitted and in the Lakhzovian amendment I would also suggest the inclusion of the clauses specifying nations to make the case for admittance and rejection." Edited by Achkaerin, 5th January 2016 - 11:00 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 7th January 2016 - 06:49 PM Post #32 | |||
![]()
|
"I shall lay this out as clearly as possible for you since you still appear to be struggling to grasp a very simple point. Your primary objection, the point you repeat ad nauseam is that our resolution subjects them to an eligibility test that includes a criteria that an entity should demonstrably be recognised as sovereign in the legal opinions of a majority of the CTO member nations before they be permitted to apply for membership. You claim that this will lead to legal appeals, to propaganda victories being handed to them. You either fail to realise, or pretend not to notice, that your proposal itself involves them being submitted to a vote of the general assembly. Tell me if the majority of the general assembly does not recognise them as a sovereign nation do you expect them to be accepted? Your whole point revolves around claiming that 1(i.)-(iv.) alone make a nation sovereign and under your resolution any nation meeting these criteria are eligible to apply, and then they are subjected to the sovereignty test anyway, they are brought before the general assembly and their fate is decided on the basis of whether or not the members view them as sovereign! Your resolution contains the exact provision ours does but with a difference. In your resolution the sovereignty test is performed after the organisation has already deemed them sovereign and eligible under 1(i.)-(iv.). Tell me, how do you imagine that a nation legalistically defined as sovereign that then gets rejected by the general assembly would react? They would have a far greater basis for an appeal case and would be justified in their action. Tell me also, do you imagine that such a rejection would not provide them with a propaganda advantage? You seem fixated on the illusion that your resolution would not suffer these faults, in fact it would leave the CTO more prone to legal and propaganda attack. What Lakhzovia's proposal does is recognise the dangers and attempts to mitigate them. By making, for purposes of determining eligibility for membership, recognition of sovereignty a criterion we sidestep these pitfalls. An entity would not be able to apply until such a time as they received recognition from the majority of members, at that point the chances of them failing the vote in the assembly are exceptionally slim. No legal challenges and limited propaganda value to be gained from it. Further an interesting question is raised by the requirement for the General Assembly vote as stipulated in the Charter. Why would the organisation enshrine in its charter what amounts to a de facto sovereignty test if it were not a basis for determination? Because at the end of the day that is what it is, by asking the assembly to vote on an aspiring member an opinion is being sought from the gathered international community on whether or not they should be admitted as a member, and as membership is open to all sovereign nations that itself becomes a direct test of their sovereignty itself. Now I believe an important point has slipped your attention Cheryl. You treat your legal opinion regarding sovereignty as if it were some self-evident natural law akin to gravity or thermodynamics, however it is not. The laws that mediate relations between nations are social constructs, and the definitions that you are relying on were only formulated during rise of the concept of nation states. To try to claim that socially constructed rules are somehow immutable is nonsense. International law gains its power by the agreement of nations to accept them and be bound by them. International law can only work with the agreement of a majority of the worlds nations, do you not see that here, at its very root, that the fabric of international law is based on its recognition by nations. The CTO is an organisation that has absolute freedom and an absolute right, to decide its own criteria for membership. The membership through recognition of law determine what international law is for treaty purposes. Why on Mundus do you seem to think that the CTO is somehow subordinate to a mystical immutable international law standing for all time as judge over us? I have set this out as clearly as I can, as certain as I am that you shall simply repeat yet again your argument while claiming I have put forward none, I do hope that you may pause to consider my points. Your resolution contains a sovereignty test already, the problem is it would create a situation where the CTO would be open to legal challenge and hand over propaganda material to rejected applicants. This test is written into the fabric of the CTO Charter. Our proposal recognises this fact and places the test where it belongs, in the eligibility assessment." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Tytor | 7th January 2016 - 07:37 PM Post #33 | |||
![]()
|
Over the past half hour of increasingly loud arguments, Appleby had been developing one heck of a headache. As the Lakhzovian delegate finished speaking, he leaned forward, gave a small cough, and interjected before the Achkaerinese delegation could counter the last points made. "My dear colleagues," he said in a slightly strained voice, "Pardon me for interrupting, but this body is intended to be a place for civil discussion, not personal attacks. I think we can all agree that both Achkaerin and Lakhzovia have strong, well-thought-out points, and we have heard both repeated several times so far. Now, in the interest of civility, could we all please stop shouting?" Wincing at his own words, which had unintentionally become rather loud, he went on, "I, er, second the Dartfordian proposal." At that, he sat back again, rubbing his temples. Edited by Tytor, 7th January 2016 - 07:40 PM.
|
|||
|
His Majesty Michael the First, by the Grace of God, King of Tytor and her Colonies, and Lord Protector of Floodwater His Excellency Juvenal Massaquoi, President of Ubakasa, Protector of the Revolution, and Father of His People Factbook -- News -- Press Office Former Governor-General of The Infinite Alliance Former Ambassador to Albion and the Global Right Alliance Former Vice Premier and Speaker of the Senate of the Independent Order Professional Procrastinator In firm opposition to Donald Trump's inevitable reelection campaign in 2020 Non-partisan and proud of it "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire | ||||
| Gadshack | 7th January 2016 - 08:06 PM Post #34 | |||
![]()
|
Zuko leaned forward as well, "This entire commune has been shamefure, it's just a shamefure dispray on both sides. I agree with the Tytorian deregate, ret's keep this civir and perhaps agree to disagree, but yet compromise. If anything i think we've heard enough of you two fight rike chirdren, Toshikawa is ready vote for either one on this matter." | |||
|
Factbook of Tokulel Ahkabnil Wiki | ||||
| Achkaerin | 7th January 2016 - 09:09 PM Post #35 | |||
![]()
|
"We have moved on from the Lakhzovian proposal but we still see a misconception not to mention a misunderstanding. We see in both the Dartfordian proposal which falls along the same lines as the original proposal and in the Lakhzovian proposal the correctly understood point that for a nation to be able to apply for membership it must first be sovereign and each resolution proposed in it's own way attempts to address this. I will make clear though that under the Achkaerin resolution there is no 'sovereignty test' before the assembly. If a nation were to apply and the resolution reaches the General Assembly floor the nation in question is deemed sovereign because it meets in essence what you propose in 1(i) to 1(iv) and what the Dartfordians propose in their draft. Now the key difference is that the Dartfordian and Achkaerinese suggestions call for a single that's one vote in which the question put would be 'should nation X be admitted to the CTO?' that is not a legal question at all that is a question of morality and that is not subject to legal appeal in any way, shape or form. We are then in that vote able to say that because there is a dictator or the nation has a poor human rights record that they should not be admitted. It is not a legal point we aren't challenging the nations sovereignty, we aren't challenging the nation's laws or it's right to govern or even exist, we simply give the General Assembly the opportunity to express their opinion on a nations application to join h Now the Lakhozvian proposal calls for not only that vote but one before that which would ask 'is nation X sovereign?' now it is fine to put in the resolution the criteria for sovereignty but it must be understood that it is a legal not a moral question, when we talk of morality we talk about however many shades of grey you can think of, when we talk of legal matters especially in matters like sovereignty it is black and white. The critical point is that 1(i) to 1(iv) of the Lakhzovian proposal spells out point by point the legal definition of sovereignty, this is the objective standard by which fledgling countries measure themselves, by which they are recognized under international law and most crucially for this organisation it is the definition used by the ICJ. If an applicant nations meets 1(i) to 1(iv) of the Lakhzovian proposal and then fails the vote of 1(v) despite the objective legal standard then it has the right to appeal the General Assembly's decision to the ICJ and unless the reason for the failed vote has basis in legality not morality the ICJ would uphold said appeal and we'd move to vote number two. You also fail to consider what a nation passing your process means for the next nation applying- if we take the legal understanding of a majority to be 50% plus one then it goes something like a majority of eleven is six but a majority of twelve is seven, as each nation joins the bar is slightly raised for the next nation and so on and so on. Practically we have to be fair it is not about the twenty three nations that make up this organisation when it comes to your 'sovereignty' vote it is about how many of the delegates representing those twenty three nations happen to vote, this again changes the variable so if your resolution Mr Hohk is to go forward then I suggest you at the very least alter that to reflect that is a majority of the votes cast that matters and not a majority of the organisation membership. Twenty three has a majority of twelve let's not start being discriminatory because less than twelve happen to vote. The other option you have is to state a specific number of nations that must recognize the nation as sovereign such as six nations that would keep the bar consistently at the same height regardless of the total membership number thus ensuring that each time the process is the same. If 1(v) of your proposal read: Must have the recognition as a sovereign state from six CTO member states then I would support it because it is not a vote it is a petition. This would also not preclude legal issues with regards to said nation signing the MCUR, Uppsalla Convention and Fair Seas Concordat. Ultimately though that would be making the best of something I have major misgivings about. I am more inclined to support the Dartfordian proposition." Edited by Achkaerin, 7th January 2016 - 09:39 PM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 7th January 2016 - 10:11 PM Post #36 | |||
![]()
|
Hokh sat with an expression of utter disbelief on his face before he composed himself to speak "Did you actually read our resolution? 1(v) doesn't say anything about a vote. It states that they must be recognised by a majority, not that a majority must vote for their recognition. However perhaps the problem is you view the threshold being pegged at a majority as a vote in essence. If this is the sole issue that prevents you from supporting something that is a sensible measure then certainly in the name of compromise we would be willing to establish a set threshold and call it a petition, honestly if this is all that it would have taken you should have said so earlier and saved us all this frustration. So I will make it clear that Lakhzovia will gladly discuss with you regarding the notion converting 1(v) in to a 'petition' presuming that this was a genuine expression of intent on your part when you said you would support 1(v) in the event of such a change?" |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 8th January 2016 - 12:04 AM Post #37 | |||
![]()
|
"It may not state a vote in terms of a yes or no" Cheryl said slightly relieved that finally they were getting somewhere, it was amazing what clarity could do though why that hadn't been said the first time the 'sovereignty vote' phrase had been used was baffling "However the implication but more specifically the image that the present wording of 1(v) gives off is one of a nation applying to the CTO, said nation then being invited before this chamber to put their case for membership in the hopes of convincing a majority so twelve out of twenty three that their nation is sovereign now that image is very much like a vote. Use of words such as 'recognized' and 'majority' always by implication in political arena's imply a vote. Sticking with that image the issue is more those that say in the negative whether openly or by omission, it is not a good image for this organisation to give off and when you say majority recognition you suggest that even those that don't have a concern but don't say anything so would if you'll pardon the phrase 'vote yes' would by omission and abstention be 'voting no'. Which is why I prefer the petition approach because the sovereignty recognition issues that some nations may have is kept firmly outside of the debate- Which is to say that what we need to avoid is an applicant nation coming to this assembly looking for a majority recognition only to have a debate spark up about whether or not said nation is sovereign. Instead when the application to join is made the threshold number of signatures as it were can be acquired then[1] meaning the sole purpose of the debate can be on the membership application. Now if the threshold is set at a reasonable level and falls in line with the ethos of the CTO then the Lakhzovian amendment to the base resolution that we submitted, now that it has been explained clearly would then be the draft that proceeded to be voted upon and since it would fall broadly in line with both the base resolution since it builds upon it and also the Dartfordian draft it would if taken to vote enjoy Achkaerin support. So now that we're on the same page let's talk about the threshold." [1] OOC- I'm talking ICly with this point OOCly this would probably have to work with the opening of any such membership debate being firstly the petition itself so not really a debate. Edited by Achkaerin, 8th January 2016 - 12:24 AM.
|
|||
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 8th January 2016 - 05:24 PM Post #38 | |||
![]()
|
"It would seemingly appear that the majority are satisfied with the Dartfordian resolution. I feel at present much of the debate is not making progress but is rather repeating arguments, as a majority taking part appear supportive of this draft I therefore ask if there are any objections or is this the one people wish to place before the General Assembly for a vote?" Edited by NordicPeoples, 11th January 2016 - 09:32 AM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 10th January 2016 - 05:24 PM Post #39 | |||
![]()
|
Er the debate was making progress, I was away for Shabbat. | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 10th January 2016 - 05:49 PM Post #40 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- Just so people are actually aware if you read back through the thread between the Achkaiern and Lakhzovia arguments you actually have Dartfordia putting forward their proposal, it being supported by Tytor who actually propose putting it to vote and Toshikawa seemingly agreeing with Tytor. So if you want to continue this debate can I suggest actually bearing that in mind. This matter is dragging on and on and actually is holding up several other RP's which will die a death because of it. This whole debate started over the Borland thing which has now been unsettled since the 11th of December, something that is unfair to other RPers. So might I suggest we stop repeating arguments and actually start proposing things. | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th January 2016 - 05:52 PM Post #41 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- The fact remains that now after about twenty to twenty five references Lakhzovia has finally stated they aren't talking about a vote on sovereignty so we now have a situation where any of the three resolutions could go to vote since all address the same things. | |||
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 10th January 2016 - 05:55 PM Post #42 | |||
![]()
|
Well seeing as we five people involved in the debate and three have said they'd support taking the Dartfordian one to vote what would people like me to do? | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th January 2016 - 06:01 PM Post #43 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- Well I personally have no objection to the Dartfordian one being put. | |||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 10th January 2016 - 06:44 PM Post #44 | |||
![]()
|
Well if you also read the last two posts you'd see we'd more or less come to an agreement. You just decided for convenience to push things on without consulting. If you feel things were being unfair to others then how about a PM pointing out that some other threads were being held up rather than taking upon yourself to end a debate. | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 10th January 2016 - 07:00 PM Post #45 | |||
![]()
|
You wanted the debate back open and it is. The point being the majority of input is saying they support the Dartfordia proposal. What we've had is this going in circles for ages, the majority have come to a point where they are happy, at least that's how I read it. If you want to continue the debate then do just that, you've got the forum and time like you wanted, just focus on the fact the majority are supporting the Dartfordia proposal rather than what was a repetitive argument between two people. | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th January 2016 - 07:03 PM Post #46 | |||
![]()
|
Ok before this gets way out of hand, let's move forwards- if Astetoth is happy to amend 1(v) of the Lakhzovian draft to state that a nation that meets the criteria of 1(i) to 1(iv) of the Lakhzovian draft must have the support of five CTO members to have a motion for their admission to be brought to the General Assembly then I believe we'd be at a point where the vote can be altered to be a simple choice between the Lakhzovian and Dartfordian drafts, following that we can then formally vote on the selected draft. | |||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 10th January 2016 - 09:31 PM Post #47 | |||
![]()
|
"Lakhzovia would like to propose a compromise agreement. Using the Dartfordian resolution as a base we would propose adding a point that aspiring members must have the support of a threshold of 7 member nations to make an application. As we know Achkaerin are very particular when it comes to wording we would offer them the opportunity to draft an amendment which encapsulates this in language they believe acceptable. Should this be a satisfactory suggestion to Darftordia we would be happy to proceed down this route." |
|||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| DaveIronside | 10th January 2016 - 09:50 PM Post #48 | |||
![]()
Bendix Landau (1880-1939)
|
OOC- Can I just point out threasholds tend not to work well when set high, while ICly it might seem a good point OOCly from experience I've found that to get 7 people to spot something like that is going on and post is going to be tough, I mean look at this debate, as it doesn't directly effect people we've had about four to five people post. Whatever we do for admissions procedures we need to make sure people can actually get in. For one reason that's why I set the CETO membership quiet low in terms of a 2 person threshold. | |||
| ||||
| Gadshack | 10th January 2016 - 10:03 PM Post #49 | |||
![]()
|
OOC - if only this was an IC organization and not an OOC one... | |||
|
Factbook of Tokulel Ahkabnil Wiki | ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th January 2016 - 10:26 PM Post #50 | |||
![]()
|
"If we are to include a 'petition' clause then it should read 'The eligible nation must have their application supported by three CTO member nations' The wording fits with the Dartfordian resolution and the threshold is suitable enough to avoid causing two debates within one matter. OOC- I'm proposing the threshold of three because as Dave has pointed out it is achievable, if we set it at six or seven we're asking for around one third of the organisation and that's not fair OOCly on applying nations when you consider how many active members we actually have within the CTO. |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 10th January 2016 - 10:58 PM Post #51 | |||
![]()
|
"Lakhzovia accepts the Achkaerin recommendation" | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 11th January 2016 - 09:34 AM Post #52 | |||
![]()
|
I assume then that this is what people are happy with?
OOC - Inserted a new No.1 with the support element and then renumbered subsequent articles. |
|||
| ||||
| Astetoth | 11th January 2016 - 06:02 PM Post #53 | |||
![]()
|
"We are happy to proceed with a vote on the resolution as amended." | |||
|
Lakhzovia Factbook || Lakhzov Constitution Map of Lakhzovia
| ||||
| NordicPeoples | 11th January 2016 - 06:35 PM Post #54 | |||
![]()
|
OOC - Having reached a point at which I believe we've got no discent I'll leave the debate open until Wednesday 10pm UK time, at which point if there has been no issue raised we'll move to vote. However the Borland admission still needs to be looked at. | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 11th January 2016 - 09:31 PM Post #55 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- if this pass's vote which it should what I will have Cheryl do in the Borland thread is move to strike the present resolutions in the Borland thread and we will then proceed to put Borland through this admission process. | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 13th January 2016 - 05:25 PM Post #56 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- Just so it's noted officially. "The proposal we now have is sound and I move it be put to vote." |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 15th January 2016 - 11:01 AM Post #57 | |||
![]()
|
OOC- Erm not for nothing but Nord can we put this to vote please? | |||
| ||||
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||||
| « Previous Topic · Archive · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
^ 7:02 PM Jul 11
|
May the force be with you.





Map of Lakhzovia











