Dear Jacqueline,
To further clarify our position, we want to explain the
nature of what
is a point of order.
The UNGA Rules of Procedure, in particular, Article 79 of Annex
IV (a) of the
Rules of the General Assembly, gives a concept of what a point
of order:
79. The Special Committee recommends to the
General Assembly the
adoption of the following text as a description of the concept of a point of order [para. 229]:
"(a)
A point
of order is basically an intervention directed to the
presiding officer,
requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his
office or specifically
given him under the rules of
procedure. It may, for example, relate to the
manner in which the
debate is conducted, to the maintenance of order, to the
observance of the
rules of procedure or to the way in which presiding officers
exercise the
powers conferred upon them by the rules. Under a point
of order, a
representative may request the presiding officer to apply a certain rule
of procedure or he may question the way in which the officer applies
the rule. Thus, within
the scope of the rules of
procedure, representatives are enabled
to direct the attention of the presiding officer to violations
or
misapplications of the rules by other representatives or by the
presiding
officer himself. A point of
order has precedence
over any other matter, including procedural motions (rules 73
[114] [Rule 71
[113] of the present rules of procedure] and 79 [120] [Rule 77
[119] of the
present rules of procedure]).
"(b) Points of order raised under rule
73 [114]n involve questions necessitating a ruling by the
presiding officer,
subject to possible appeal. They are therefore distinct from
the procedural
motions provided for in rules 76
[117] [Rule 74 [116] of the present rules of procedure] to 79
[120]o which can
be decided only by a vote and on which more than one motion
may be entertained
at the same time, rule 79 [120]o laying down the precedence of
such motions.
They
are also distinct from requests for information or
clarification, or from
remarks relating to material arrangements (seating,
interpretation system,
temperature of the room), documents, translations, etc.,
which - while they may
have to be dealt with by the presiding officer - do not
require rulings from
him. However, in established United Nations
practice, a representative
intending to submit a procedural motion or to seek
information or clarification
often rises to 'a
point of order' as a
means of obtaining the floor. The latter usage, which is
based on practical
grounds, should not be confused with the raising of points
of order under rule
73 [114].
If
Mr. Samuels' request is
reviewed, it can be observed that the request it is not directed
to the
President ‘requesting him
to make use of
some power inherent in his office or specifically given him
under the rules of
procedure', but he requests ‘That the
general assembly demonstrate its lack of confidence in the
LACRALO leadership
and vote on this motion’.
Hi
I don't think you understood my question. A motion was raised on a Point of Order. The rules that you just quoted say that this needs to be dealt with immediately, I think this means that we have to (if we were in a physical meeting, we would stop, discuss, get a ruling, appeal, vote .. Before continuing on what we were doing - the original vote) focus on this, because if the motion on the Point of Order passes, the process that we are in will be judged illegitimate and will have to end.
So I really think that we, in order to be correct, need to deal with Carlton's motion before the election process ends. If translation etc are making it take too long, then yes, we need to suspend or extend. I don't think a suspension needs to be requested per we, but in order for things to run properly, in official order, this may have to happen.