(08-22-2017, 09:38 PM)Pronoun Wrote: There also needs to be much greater safeguard against rash decisions that will be regretted later; for example, who needs to hold this reasonable belief? Furthermore, I feel this should be reserved for extreme circumstances.

The safeguard against rash decisions already exists in the form of due process. If someone makes a rash and unfounded determination that regional security is at risk and the court finds that it was not, the decision is reversed. No harm done. As to who should hold this reasonable belief, anyone that has been charged with protecting the regional security of the south pacific, be that the delegate or a member of the security council. 

I know I'm new to GCRs, I've spent about a week and a half in TNP before joining here, but I feel like threats to regional security are some of the most extreme circumstances there are.