Amendment to the Charter

[Napieria]

I would support this amendment.

[Caer Rialis]

Fine enough, but my question is, how would we select the 'humanitarian' operations we shall involve ourselves in? Should these operations have the approval of the Ministry of Security, the Cabinet, the Delegate, or the South Pacific Assembly? [in other words, which approves the operations?] Do we need or do we have any criteria that has to be met by regions that wants or we want to help?

Just some questions that come up. Thanks in advance.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden

I think we should maintain the standard Geo cited. Although one could propse a law which would give the Assembly the right to require reports from the MoS on the progress of SPIF in those humanitarian actions.

[htz31361849782]

Maybe we could do something similar to The War Powers Act here in the US. There would have to be differenc's like a time limit on how long the action can go on without cabint approval or possibly Assembly approval. In an emergency who can call for deployment just the Min. of Security or can the Delegate request it? My feeling was generally it should be left to the Min. unless unavailable then it would fall to the Delegate but with approval from say at least 3 cabinet members?

[Fudgie]

I see no problem with the ammendment. Excellent work, Geo.

[Guest]

Maybe we could do something similar to The War Powers Act here in the US. There would have to be differenc's like a time limit on how long the action can go on without cabint approval or possibly Assembly approval.

In the real world, it usually requires an act of parliament at some stage, but I don't think that will be necessary in NS, as here we don't have people getting killed and we do not require funding. However, I think the Assembly should be informed at all times if the SPIF, or a part thereof, is deployed somewhere, and why.

In an emergency who can call for deployment just the Min. of Security or can the Delegate request it? My feeling was generally it should be left to the Min. unless unavailable then it would fall to the Delegate but with approval from say at least 3 cabinet members?

I think the deployment should be the primary responsibility of the MoS. If the MoS is unavailable, it should go to the PM instead of the Delegate. The MoS and the PM can be held accountable, the Delegate cannot.

I don't like the idea of specifying how many votes a certain cabinet decision should have, as I think that the cabinet should act as a team and that decisions of cabinet members are to be backed by the cabinet as a whole. In the past this has always been the case, AFAIK. Of course each cabinet is free to set their own rules, but I don't think these rules should be imposed.

[Geomania]

Would anybody mind if I moved to vote on this?

[Caer Rialis]

Have the reservations and ideas of the assembly been considered in the final draft, Geo?

[Guest]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="'"Brutland and Norden""> Fine enough' date=' but my question is, how would we select the 'humanitarian' operations we shall involve ourselves in? Should these operations have the approval of the Ministry of Security, the Cabinet, the Delegate, or the South Pacific Assembly? [in other words, which approves the operations?'] Do we need or do we have any criteria that has to be met by regions that wants or we want to help?

Just some questions that come up. Thanks in advance.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden

I think we should maintain the standard Geo cited. Although one could propse a law which would give the Assembly the right to require reports from the MoS on the progress of SPIF in those humanitarian actions.
</blockquote> I support this statement. Let's move this to a vote (it's going to take a month anyway) and create a separate SPIF act which details things like command structure and accountability, requirements for interventions and informing the Assembly.

[kloister]

Are we going to tie up any loose ends and put this up for vote in The Assembly?..

[Guest]

Sounds like a plan