Security Council RoP

I've got a copy of a Security Council RoP that, pending any suggested changes from this committee, I'd like to see as the nationwide copy of RoP for all Security Council conferences. Would everybody like them sent round or do we think we have major changes we need to make to our Security Council? I don't think we need to reduce the Security Council RoP for conferences with newbies to Model UN because I always think of SCs as the more elite education conference as opposed to an ordinary Model UN so all delegates at the conferences tend to be at the stage where they would understand the more advanced options of the conference i.e. straw poles etc. What do y'all think?

I think it would be good to see Rules of Procedure from other major tertiary-level conferences like AMUNC, and see how our RoP stack up. I think ours may have been originally derived from those, but it would be good to check that ours are still similar enough.

The other thing is to try to make most of it similar to our GA/Comm RoPs, so that chairs and secretaries don't need to retrain. Maybe more likely is that chairs/secretaries won't bother to retrain, and then make lots of mistakes if the SC RoP are significantly different.

At AMUNC, SC used the same RoP as general committees, and there were no straw polls. (http://amunc.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AMUNC-2012-Rules-of-Procedure.pdf) These are definitely a lot more comprehensive and better-written than any NZ RoP that I've seen so far, but their density isn't necessarily a good thing.

The actual SC RoP almost seem simpler... http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

That's awesome stuff guys, What do you guys want to see out of the AMUNC and actual RoP added to our Security Councils in NZ?

Also, I think the SC and GA should be substantially different to really help justify why we run the two different conferences at a regional level and to provide the best educaitonal value in teaching our members out the UN. I also think that the chairs need to be more respectful of the position and ensure they are trained and know of their responsibilities to their committees so I think if chairs are not bothered with retraining then we have a greater issue than one to be discussed with regards the Rules of Procedures.

I have a copy of the Model SC rules of procedure, which are to be used at AHSMSC this weekend and there are some small things that I think need to be corrected.

Firstly, I dont think there should be reference to the "President" as in the actual UN the President of the Security Council rotates around the member states. To remove annoying delegates from saying "Hey, shouldnt Germany be the President" I think we should stick with "Chairperson"

Also clause 1.1 refer's specifically to NZMSC so it needs to be altered for every Model SC or we need to restate them in more general terms so they can be used across all events.

7.1 Start of Unmoderated Caucus
"Unmoderated caucuses are initiated at the President’s discretion. Delegates may request
caucus time by sending a note to the President, but not by motion."
I don't see why delegates can't motion for Unmoderated caucus??

"8.2 Introduction of Draft Resolutions
Draft resolutions are introduced by motion from the floor. If a Draft Resolution is
successfully introduced, the:
a) President suspends the general speakers’ list;
b) Proposer reads the operative clauses;
c) Delegates may ask questions of clarification;
d) President and delegates may propose syntactic and semantic amendments;
e) Proposer speaks to the draft resolution;
f) President opens the draft resolution speakers’ list;
g) Seconder speaks to the draft resolution;
h) Draft resolution speakers’ list commences with the first speaker against."
I don't think this clause fits for a high school event.

Thats pretty much all that I can see, I might give the rules a touch up for this weekend with this committees permission

Hey Jason,

Thanks for your input, as we are in the middle of developing the Rules of Procedure I'm sure you can appreciate there will be issues whilst this happens.

Firstly, I've specifically opted for President rather than Chairperson as it makes it more realistic to the Security Council, we don't have delegates chairing as President as the real SC in order to manage the debate properly as Conference Assistants. If delegates claim they should be President this is the reason and I would prefer we stick with President rather than Chair.

Clause 1.1 does need to be changed, our Rules of Procedure should not reference any particular event at all.

7.1 should remain the same, unmoderated caucus needs to be controlled by the President in order to better time manage the debate and ensure things work well all round, to allow motion for unmoderated caucus puts the power in the delegates to vote for caucus time, this could have adverse consequences to the debate in general and could lead delegates to complain where their motion is not entertained.

8.2 can stay, it can be explained at the start of the day and can also remain without delegates using it at all if they don't want to. There is some movement to allow high school students to write their own resolutions and I think this should stay because we will have MSC with HS students where they can draft and subsequently table resolutions from time to time.

I hope that clarifies it a bit.

Hey Scottie

Just a thought on the Security Council RoPs. I notice that in the WHSMSC rules (which I assume are the current version) there is a bit of an ambiguity between the rule about the majority required on substantive matters. In the "Interpretation" section, the rules state that a two-thirds majority is AT LEAST two thirds of member states present and voting, whereas in the "Voting" section it merely says "two thirds of member states present and voting". This is problematic because in a Council of 15 (assuming nobody abstains), "at least two thirds" would be 11, and just "two thirds" would only be 10.

To complicate it further, the real SC (as per the UN Charter) requires exactly 9 member states to vote in favour of a resolution for it to pass (which is a three-fifths majority). This has the interesting consequence that an abstention is technically a vote against, since the requirement is 9 states regardless of who is present or voting.

Can we make it clearer in our rules what the requirement is for a resolution to pass? My suggestion is that we either just adopt the same rules as the UN Charter, or we make it clearer whether it must be AT LEAST a two-thirds majority, or just a simple two-thirds majority. The beauty of a simple two thirds majority P&V is that the number of "for" votes must be at least double the "against" votes. Simple.

The new MSC rules of procedure (used for NZMSC 2012 and probably from then onwards) has:

12.5 Passing of Substantive Votes.
Substantive votes require an affirmative vote of nine members of the Security Council to pass, including an affirmative vote or abstention from the five Permanent Members.

and doesn't have mention substantive votes or votes required to pass a resolution anywhere else.

Sounds great. We should ensure that nothing in the rules contradicts with that, so as to keep everything clear.