Official Forum for Esamir, a Nationstates Region.


    (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Share
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:27 pm

    Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Article I:

    • Section 1.1: This act hereby establishes the United Nations of Esamir Peacekeeping Force, or UNEPF.
    • Section 1.2: The UNEPF shall consist of military forces provided by nations that maintain a place on either the Security Council and/or the General Assembly.
    • Section 1.3: The UNEPF shall begin operations in any given area provided the consent of a majority of the Security Council exists.
    • Section 1.4: Operational command of the UNEPF shall be delegated to the Esamir Department of Defense unless otherwise delegated by the Security Council.


    Article II:

    • Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended. It may only be deployed without consent of the legitimate government if a state of civil unrest exists which is significant enough to prevent the use of basic necessities of its resident populace.
    • Section 2.2: In any region where the UNEPF is active, hostility shown towards persons operating under their guise shall be considered declaration of hostile intent towards the United Nations Government and thus to the stability of Esamir as a whole.
    • Section 2.3: UNEPF forces are not to operate on the basis of ideological consideration, and are first and foremost delegated to maintain the peace in whatsoever region they are deployed.
    • Section 2.4: Being that the UNEPF is comprised of soldiers who are made up of varying beliefs, ethnicities, and nationalities, UNEPF soldiers are not to place the considerations of their individual nations above the considerations of the United Nations Government.  
    • Section 2.5: The UNEPF may only be used for peacekeeping operations and is not to be used in an offensive capacity.


    Article III:

    • Section 3.1: Each member of the Security Council will be required to provide military personnel and materiel for the UNEPF as warranted by current international circumstances as declared by the Security Council.
    • Section 3.2: Members of the General Assembly are not required to provide troops but may do so if they so desire.
    • Section 3.3: Should a member of the Security Council be unable to provide the requested military personnel or materiel due to mitigating domestic circumstances, they will be exempt from Section 3.1.


    Last edited by Eurasia on Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:18 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Information

    Post by Kaevi on Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:34 pm

    The debate period shall now commence, ending on April 16, 2015, at 00:00 UTC. Votes cast during this time will not be counted and are discouraged. The debate period may be extended with a 4/5 majority from the debating nations. The author of this proposal may request an end to the debate at any time. All nations are encouraged to participate in the debate, but new nations may vote after a residence of one week.

    The voting period will begin immediately following the expiration of the debate period.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:27 pm

    I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.
    avatar
    New Tarajan
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 25
    Location : Rome

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by New Tarajan on Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:18 pm

    Federation of Antanares wrote:I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.

    We agree.
    The force should be deployed ONLY with the consent of the legitimate government of the country.
    avatar
    United States of Europe
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 134
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Location : Latina,Lazio (Italy)

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by United States of Europe on Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:36 pm

    Federation of Antanares wrote:I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.
    We are against this change. In case of violation of international law by any nation,properly certified and evaluated by Esamir Court of Justice or Security Council,these Regional Government bodies have the full right to deploy international military forces in that nation,if necessary.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:53 am

    United States of Europe wrote:
    Federation of Antanares wrote:I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.
    We are against this change. In case of violation of international law by any nation,properly certified and evaluated by Esamir Court of Justice or Security Council,these Regional Government bodies have the full right to deploy international military forces in that nation,if necessary.

    This is the purpose of Section 2.1. The legitimate government must consent unless they are in violation of international law, in which the Security Council, COJ, or both can authorize the deployment of the UNEPF. Further, the third portion of that section refers to, say if there is a civil war and the government's power has been so eroded that they can't provide basic necessities for their people, the Security Council could authorize UNEPF involvement without their consent.
    avatar
    Zackalantis
    Common State
    Common State

    Posts : 355
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 20
    Location : Mumbai,Maharashtra,India

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Zackalantis on Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:04 am

    We stand opposed to section 2.1 for the same reason as stated by the delegations of Antanares and NT.

    Peace keeping troops are to be used only in order to protect and prevent. NOT to punish a nation that has violated international law.

    Such punishment should be done so by the Security Council ALONE in the form of embargoes or authorizing military intervention.

    We are here discussing PEACE KEEPING. As the name suggests they maintain the peace by forming a buffer of sorts between hostile parties.

    We believe, the Security Council and the Security Council ALONE should decide when and where peace keeping troops are to be deployed. This is NOT to be decided by the courts.

    Finally i have a question regarding the last section, Sec 3.3
    How and who is to decide if a nation is incapable of providing armed personnel and equipment for peace keeping.

    Also we would like to suggest that contribution to the peace keeping efforts and troops should be purely VOLUNTARY! No nation despite it's position in the SC or the GA should give troops to the peace keeping force under compulsion. This would discourage less privileged nations from seeking SC membership and that would make our SC a power club.
    avatar
    Zackalantis
    Common State
    Common State

    Posts : 355
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 20
    Location : Mumbai,Maharashtra,India

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Zackalantis on Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:08 am

    United States of Europe wrote:
    Federation of Antanares wrote:I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.
    We are against this change. In case of violation of international law by any nation,properly certified and evaluated by Esamir Court of Justice or Security Council,these Regional Government bodies have the full right to deploy international military forces in that nation,if necessary.

    Peace Keeping ≠ SC Authorized Military Intervention
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:25 am

    Zackalantis wrote:We stand opposed to section 2.1 for the same reason as stated by the delegations of Antanares and NT.

    Peace keeping troops are to be used only in order to protect and prevent. NOT to punish a nation that has violated international law.

    The fragment devoted to international law violations would be to keep the peace in a nation that is embroiled in a war and has violated international law. As an example: If the UNEPF had existed during Snow's reign in Atanea, they would have intervened and separated the rebels and loyalists while the COJ and Security Council (had it existed) would have then authorized military intervention. UNEPF intervention would be designed to stop a conflict so other Governmental organizations can do their jobs.

    Zackalantis wrote:Such punishment should be done so by the Security Council ALONE in the form of embargoes or authorizing military intervention.

    See above.

    Zackalantis wrote:We are here discussing PEACE KEEPING. As the name suggests they maintain the peace by forming a buffer of sorts between hostile parties.

    As I said, that is the intent.

    Zackalantis wrote:We believe, the Security Council and the Security Council ALONE should decide when and where peace keeping troops are to be deployed. This is NOT to be decided by the courts.

    We believe that you do not understand the Constitution of Esamir, as it authorizes such activities.

    [quote=Zackalantis]Finally i have a question regarding the last section, Sec 3.3
    How and who is to decide if a nation is incapable of providing armed personnel and equipment for peace keeping. [/quote]

    The meaning is that a nation should provide military personnel or equipment unless it is unable to do so due to financial concerns, i.e. no defense budget, or no existing military. The decision would be based on the nation declaring it is unable to do so. Pacifistic nations could supply equipment, like medical supplies and vehicles.

    Zackalantis wrote:Also we would like to suggest that contribution to the peace keeping efforts and troops should be purely VOLUNTARY! No nation despite it's position in the SC or the GA should give troops to the peace keeping force under compulsion. This would discourage less privileged nations from seeking SC membership and that would make our SC a power club.

    This would not make the Security Council a "power club". On the contrary, it would assure that the nations on the Security Council do their part to maintain peace in Esamir. A nation is required to give troops and/or supplies. If they are unable to do both they will not be penalized. If they refuse then they will, as they understood the requirements of being on the Security Council when they applied for election.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:27 am

    Zackalantis wrote:
    United States of Europe wrote:
    Federation of Antanares wrote:I think the section 2.1 must be changed. Because we must respect the right of sovereignty of every nations inside its territory I think the article 2.1 must become:

    Section 2.1:The UNEPF shall be deployed with the consent of the legitimate government of the nation to which military action is intended.

    Neither the UNE Government or the Court of Justice have the jurisdiction of impose the presence of military forces into a national territory.
    We are against this change. In case of violation of international law by any nation,properly certified and evaluated by Esamir Court of Justice or Security Council,these Regional Government bodies have the full right to deploy international military forces in that nation,if necessary.

    Peace Keeping ≠ SC Authorized Military Intervention

    Actually, it does. You are simply using a very narrow definition of what is military intervention.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:06 am

    Right of sovereignty. No "International government" should have the power to enforce its volition over a nation, that is independent.
    We are strongly against the 2.1, without the changes proposed.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:09 am

    Federation of Antanares wrote:Right of sovereignty. No "International government" should have the power to enforce its volition over a nation, that is independent.
    We are strongly against the 2.1, without the changes proposed.

    So then we should just do away with the entire UN Government. The issues are are proposing happen every time the General Assembly, Court of Justice, or Security Council undertake any action. By being a member of the United Nations, you agree to relinquish a portion of your sovereignty.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:41 am

    Yeah, but only a portion of it. Not a large portion, like this one. International organizations have a lot of instruments, like economical sanctions, embargo, diplomatic sanctions. Sending soldiers is an invasion.
    Antanares will maintain its position against the 2.1 without changes. It is an exaggerated violation of the right of sovereignty of every nation of the UNE.
    avatar
    New Tarajan
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 25
    Location : Rome

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by New Tarajan on Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:45 am

    Federation of Antanares wrote:Right of sovereignty. No "International government" should have the power to enforce its volition over a nation, that is independent.
    We are strongly against the 2.1, without the changes proposed.

    Nope.
    You're not relinquishing national sovereignty...not in that sense. The United Nations are not a supranational government...they're an institution made to assure peace, not to infringe national sovereignty.
    Unfortunately, to give such power to the UNE would mean to give it to the majority of countries. We cannot accept that a group of countries simply define, by their own will, what is good and what is evil, sending military forces accordingly against other countries which do not share their views.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:45 am

    New Tarajan wrote:
    Federation of Antanares wrote:Right of sovereignty. No "International government" should have the power to enforce its volition over a nation, that is independent.
    We are strongly against the 2.1, without the changes proposed.

    Nope.
    You're not relinquishing national sovereignty...not in that sense. The United Nations are not a supranational government...they're an institution made to assure peace, not to infringe national sovereignty.
    Unfortunately, to give such power to the UNE would mean to give it to the majority of countries. We cannot accept that a group of countries simply define, by their own will, what is good and what is evil, sending military forces accordingly against other countries which do not share their views.

    We do not understand this statement. Is it the position of the Tarajani Government that peacekeeping would give too much power to the UN Government>
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:31 am

    No. I think the statement of New Tarajan is that send troops without the consent of the local government is too much power for the UN Government.
    Also, maybe much important, we must consider that no nations, in the Council, the Assembly or the CoJ are perfectly neutral and the possibilities to send "peace-keeping" forces would become not a neutral system to assure the peace, but a political means to assure to the nations of the three organizations the power to enforce a point of view.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:46 am

    Federation of Antanares wrote:No. I think the statement of New Tarajan is that send troops without the consent of the local government is too much power for the UN Government.
    Also, maybe much important, we must consider that no nations, in the Council, the Assembly or the CoJ are perfectly neutral and the possibilities to send "peace-keeping" forces would become not a neutral system to assure the peace, but a political means to assure to the nations of the three organizations the power to enforce a point of view.

    That is a very narrow way of viewing it. When the CoJ issues a verdict, they side with a particular view of the law. That is technically a bias. When the Security Council authorizes non UNEPF intervention, they are siding with a particular view.

    The Antanaresian delegation appears to not be understanding the purpose of the section. It is designed to allow the UNEPF to enter a nation if the government is violating international law to preserve the peace so the COJ or other organizations can do their job. They wouldn't topple a government. They would preserve peace and tranquility.

    And by the logic used in the above quote, would any Security Council and non UNEPF be not neutral in its intent? The logic that is being used by the Antanaresian delegation is highly flawed.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:11 pm

    Europe and Asia wrote:That is a very narrow way of viewing it. When the CoJ issues a verdict, they side with a particular view of the law. That is technically a bias. When the Security Council authorizes non UNEPF intervention, they are siding with a particular view.

    The Antanaresian delegation appears to not be understanding the purpose of the section. It is designed to allow the UNEPF to enter a nation if the government is violating international law to preserve the peace so the COJ or other organizations can do their job. They wouldn't topple a government. They would preserve peace and tranquility.

    And by the logic used in the above quote, would any Security Council and non UNEPF be not neutral in its intent? The logic that is being used by the Antanaresian delegation is highly flawed.

    No, they will never be totally neutral, it is a bias that we must accept. Every nations have is particular view of the world and it is impossible that, during their role in the CoJ, the Council or the Assembly they will abandon their view.
    Considered and accepted this preamble, appears more that justified avoid to legalize the opportunity to send troops into a nation without its consent. It is an invasion, not a peace-keeping act. A nation that violate, inside its territory, the International Law, must be punished with sanctions, not with an invasion.
    And, if this nation violate the International Law attacking another country, the UNEPF can easily intervene responding to a request of the attacked.
    What happen inside the border of a nation is a problem of the nation, unless it will ask for help.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:06 pm

    Federation of Antanares wrote:
    Europe and Asia wrote:That is a very narrow way of viewing it. When the CoJ issues a verdict, they side with a particular view of the law. That is technically a bias. When the Security Council authorizes non UNEPF intervention, they are siding with a particular view.

    The Antanaresian delegation appears to not be understanding the purpose of the section. It is designed to allow the UNEPF to enter a nation if the government is violating international law to preserve the peace so the COJ or other organizations can do their job. They wouldn't topple a government. They would preserve peace and tranquility.

    And by the logic used in the above quote, would any Security Council and non UNEPF be not neutral in its intent? The logic that is being used by the Antanaresian delegation is highly flawed.

    So if a nation is committing genocide the UNEPF shouldn't be deployed to stabilize the situation while the situation is dealt with?

    No, they will never be totally neutral, it is a bias that we must accept. Every nations have is particular view of the world and it is impossible that, during their role in the CoJ, the Council or the Assembly they will abandon their view.
    Considered and accepted this preamble, appears more that justified avoid to legalize the opportunity to send troops into a nation without its consent. It is an invasion, not a peace-keeping act. A nation that violate, inside its territory, the International Law, must be punished with sanctions, not with an invasion.
    And, if this nation violate the International Law attacking another country, the UNEPF can easily intervene responding to a request of the attacked.
    What happen inside the border of a nation is a problem of the nation, unless it will ask for help.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:58 pm

    Europe and Asia wrote:So if a nation is committing genocide the UNEPF shouldn't be deployed to stabilize the situation while the situation is dealt with?

    And what if a nation try to eliminate, inside its border, an organization that, for someone, is terrorist and for someone else, is not? The nations inside the CoJ could easily say that is "a violation of the right of self-determination of the citizens" and intervene with peace-keeping force.
    If you use an extreme case, obviously it will appear really logical the 2.1 without change. But we must consider all the cases and all the risks and the 2.1 appear to be a really consistent risk to the right of sovereignty of every nations of the Esamir that would in disagreement with the nations on the head of the organizations.
    We must consider this.
    avatar
    New Tarajan
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 25
    Location : Rome

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by New Tarajan on Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:00 pm

    The issue is very serious, here.

    The Eurasian delegation has a point, when it argues about the need to intervene to stop, for example, a genocide.
    But the problem is: how could we distinguish between an international intervention based upon a solid ground (like: a genocide) or one which is not?
    That of genocide is an extreme case.
    But it is far more likely that a majority of countries could use this law to simply destroy governments they don't like. And Antanares is making a good example, by citing the possibilities to hunt down terrorists who, for some reasons, in other countries are not considered as such.
    We would like to ask to our Eurasian colleagues: would Eurasia accept a UNEPF intervention in the case, for example, the CoJ or the SC are controlled by a majority of fascist countries (just to make an example) for which a socialist government is simply an aberration? We guess the answer would be "no", shouldn't we?
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:00 am

    New Tarajan wrote:The issue is very serious, here.

    The Eurasian delegation has a point, when it argues about the need to intervene to stop, for example, a genocide.
    But the problem is: how could we distinguish between an international intervention based upon a solid ground (like: a genocide) or one which is not?
    That of genocide is an extreme case.
    But it is far more likely that a majority of countries could use this law to simply destroy governments they don't like. And Antanares is making a good example, by citing the possibilities to hunt down terrorists who, for some reasons, in other countries are not considered as such.
    We would like to ask to our Eurasian colleagues: would Eurasia accept a UNEPF intervention in the case, for example, the CoJ or the SC are controlled by a majority of fascist countries (just to make an example) for which a socialist government is simply an aberration? We guess the answer would be "no", shouldn't we?

    The situation the Tarajani Delegation supposes would be possible with or without the UNEPF. We will reiterate, the purpose of the UNEPF is not offensive action to remove governments. It is to keep the peace.

    We could add to Section 2.1 a clause stating that deployment of the UNEPF without request of the legitimate government can only be done in the face of civil unrest, significant enough that the basic necessities of the populace are incapable of being utilized or nonexistent.

    A section 2.6 could also be added that would state the UNEPF cannot be used for offensive operations and can only be used to keep the peace, as stated above.
    avatar
    Federation of Antanares
    Global Force
    Global Force

    Posts : 310
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 22
    Location : Italy

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Federation of Antanares on Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:09 am

    We appreciate the modifications proposed from the delegate of Europe and Asia and its patience.
    Antanares doesn't have anything else to say about the Act. We approve it.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 992
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Eurasia on Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:41 am

    The text of the bill has been amended accordingly. If there are no further objections we move to end the debate period.
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Voting Period

    Post by Kaevi on Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:52 am

    The Speaker accepts the author's motion to end the debate period. The voting period shall now begin, ending on April 17, 2015, at 00:00 UTC. Nations may cast a vote in favor, abstention, or against. Votes of abstention will be counted as voted in favor. Nations who have resided in the region for at least one week may vote. The result will be decided via simple majority of total votes cast.

    Sponsored content

    Re: (P(I)) Esamir Peacekeeping Act of 2015

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:17 pm