(01-25-2021, 12:40 PM)GI-Land Wrote: 2: How will this "need" be determined?

Hard to say exactly. Asserting one's own territory involves a capability to detect, investigate and affect foreign ships and aircraft near or approaching one's territory. This doesn't mean you have a massive military, just some basic ships and/or aircraft. There should also be investments to e.g. share sensor data, like radar tracking, and to maintain infrastructure that can facilitate e.g. receiving military reinforcements from allies (an example would be quays suitable for heavy transport ships).

(01-25-2021, 12:40 PM)GI-Land Wrote: 10: Will the term "democracy" be discussed in the future or on a case-to-case basis? After all one could also probably find arguments for some of the founding members now on how or why they are not real or full democracies.

For me it would be sufficient if the members simply agree that a potential new member seem to adhere to international law and allows freedom of speech, has fair elections and so on. Similarly a member should be ejected if no longer perceived as a democracy.

(01-25-2021, 12:40 PM)GI-Land Wrote: 7: I would like it, if every member needs to sign the treaty, while keeping the ratification voluntary. This way the treaty gets formal support by bigger nations, while still no one has to bind themselves to it and thus does not need to give up the possibility of hosting nuclear weapons.

11: I suggest that instead of an own body, we just let our heads of states/governments and/or foreign ministers meet up regularly to decide on policies. I don't think a WF-like Assembly is needed in this case.

Good suggestions. I agree.

(01-25-2021, 12:40 PM)GI-Land Wrote: 12: In agreement with that. This HQ shall not be in the same country as the organisation's HQ though.

Without a council there would be no need for a HQ other than for the military operations (a Joint Staffs)