(ENDED) Charter Interpretation

For the first question, I think one week of debate for both General Assembly and Security Council will be good. I think the president can be the "speaker" and start the period of debates, end it and start the period of voting, that I think must be of three days.

For the second question, in my opinion we can't have a sort of force that can constrict nations to obey to the laws. We are like the UN, not like the EU or a national parliament. We sign international treaties but, unless it is write, we can do what we prefer to do. Yes, there are international responses to our actions and principles that, if violated, can be the start of a real conflict (like the case of Atenosia, for example). But most of the time we must be free to do our decision.
In the real world, for example, the UN has a Charter and has convection, signed from most of the members, but, always for example, USA doesn't sign most of them, following at the same time the Charter. And the security mechanism of the UN are the sanctions. I think that we can use the same method. It doesn't and I think can't exist a sort of international police with supranational authority. A best idea can be a system of sanctions and reactions, like the real world.

The Court is not currently entertaining matters relating to individual sovereignty or forced application to a law. Please open a separate interpretation if you wish to discuss that.

There is no President of the General Assembly. The Court could establish a position of 'Speaker' or something similar however.

I will keep this brief, as I am quite tired......for the first question, perhaps the general assembly and the security counsel could vote for their own separate speaker or a joint speaker. Another option is to give fixed times for debate and voting. For example 5 days for debate....an extension can be requested to the court.....and 3 days for voting.....or maybe 7 days for debate if a properly formatted amendment is proposed.....voting on amendments could take place before the vote on the initial bill.

As for the second question, I imagine that the legislation itself would set out who will enforce it and how it will be enforced. If this is not specified then I guess it could go to the court to decide or enforce.

Well, I remembered the presence of a president for the Assembly. I remembered wrong, sorry. Well, a speaker would be perfect for the position, in case. The important is have someone that would regulate the time, I think is good for everyone.

For the second, I would only say that I think the best, for the UNE, is a sort of non-brute force to enforce the laws. A more light system where is not necessary the presence of a military force.

As the Court has said, this is not the area for discussion vis-à-vis sovereignty. Please take it to either another interpretation or elsewhere in general.

As author of the constitutional reform, and Associate Justice of this Court, I would like to state some points about the spirit of the reform itself which could be, in my opinion, useful for the resolution of this case:

- about the issue of the voting period I personally agree with Eltebena: both the GA and the SC (but, due to its numbers, more the GA), could have the freedom to elect their own Speaker, or Chairman, in order to oversee the correct procedures of voting and debating. I didn't explicitly provide for those figures in order to leave as much freedom as possible to the Member States to decide.

- On the issue of the enforcement, I believe again that Eltebena is right while saying that the opportunity of enforcement should be assigned by the single resolution to particular agencies or Member States or Organizations (of course, in the full respect of national sovereignty...but the interactions between this principle and the Charter is a matter of RP).

I would like to invite the participants, as Eurasia already said, to focus themselves on the issues of this case, without going further. These matters are fundamental, and we should handle with them carefully.

What about the secretary general?
Why doesn't he act as speaker for the GA. The SC elects its own president to act as speaker.

That could be a feasible alternative, although I think having an independent Speaker would be ideal.

So the UNEGA elects the its own president-POUNEGA and The UNESC elects its own president-POUNESC

Just refer to it as GA, PGA, SC, and PSC. Otherwise I'm fine with that.

In the event of a tie, would the speaker/president(s) be given the power to break the tie? The manner of extensions may need to be outlined or left to later legislation. A speaker/president could be accused of unilaterally delaying a bill to prevent it from going to a vote as long for as possible. Possibly requiring 3-5 motions for debate extension from someone other than a bill's author or the speaker/president in three-day increments for a maximum time of nine days. Contrary to Eltebena, I do not think requesting a debate extension from the CJ would be ideal as it may take too long and would place more of one branch's power in the already powerful hands of another.

Sorry, I was very tired last night.....I do agree with you Kaevi, it would not be practical to request an extension from the court. You can have a speaker as well as fixed debate terms and voting periods......the speaker could keep people on topic announce debate, amendment and vote periods etc.....in terms of tie-breaking I do not believe a speaker should be granted that right.....as Eurasia said, it would be best if the speaker was independent.....that is just my opinion however. In order for something to be passed it should have a majority of votes, otherwise be blocked or amended.

I'm for a speaker, after all that you wrote I think is the best for us.

Oral Arguments are now closed. The Court will release a verdict soon.

The Court has reached verdict.

---

---

---

Retroactive Effect:

The bills currently being debated in the General Assembly, being that they have been debated and voted upon, shall be considered closed. The Speaker, after his/her election, will oversee the voting process.

---

---