Talk:Citadel Council

I decided to take on the Citadel Council Article as my new pet project. I'm going to do a little more research before it's finished (until the game come out, that is), but I should have it done w/in a day or two. SpartHawg948 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know this page has a lot of redlinks. Those are probably the articles I'l work on next. SpartHawg948 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Systems Alliance
Shouldn't the Systems Alliance be listed as a member? In both the Renegade and Paragon endings they join the Council (in different ways).
 * No, because this is a) technically a spoiler and b) not necessarily accurate. In Renegade endings humanity creates a new Council, rather than becoming a Council race. Please don't keep listing humans under Council races. --Tullis 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep removing the Systems Alliance from the Council races for the above reasons, but I'll say it again: adding humanity as a Council race is a spoiler because it gives away an important element of the ending. I will add a section on Mass Effect: Ascension that highlights humanity's new role when I have time. --Tullis 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Did BioWare mess up with the Council? According to the Codex, male salarians rarely have anything to do with politics. I think that putting one on the Council is very surprising and illogical given that, if they were being allowed more political freedom (the salarian pride movement’s really coming along :P), they would get less important jobs first. --Thejadefalcon 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Council Members' Names?
I could have sworn at some point in the game the Council members' names were given. Are their names not stated anywhere?

-- Logius 172.130.73.216 07:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. Even in Mass Effect: Revelation they're just referred to as 'the asari councillor' etc, I think. But if you do have names it'd be great to get them. --Tullis 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Systems Alliance again
Is there some more elegant way to place this, other than having a big chunk of spoiler text in the middle of the article? I even added a meta comment asking the Alliance not to be added and putting a link to the ME: Ascension information below, but it has been ignored and deleted. If people are determined to have humans under Council species, which makes sense for ME2, can we please find a better way to do it? --Tullis 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe move it to the bottom of the page, under the Mass Effect section? If it's put there it can be used kind of as a segue into a Mass Effect 2 section. SpartHawg948 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's where it was originally. You know, it might be simpler to remove the "current species / associate species" section altogether. This issue has come up over and over for a segment that's really not particularly important. --Tullis 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see where you are going with this, and it's not a bad idea, especially in light of the fact that, as you say, this is a repeat issue, and also as there are some new races whose relation with the Council is as yet unknown. Maybe we should just remove it for now, and maybe bring it back after ME2 is out (or not!) and then we might get to do this all over again! SpartHawg948 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take it out, along with the current issues section. Besides, it's not like it's lost forever, two minutes in the page history and a Ctrl+C, and we're back in business. The might be problematic later, but we can always stick an asterisk on the Alliance or something. --Tullis 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Galaxy
Isn't their a plot hole in the Galaxy game? If the Council makes an appearance and has an asari on it, wouldn't that contradict a playthrough that saw the death of the council and the creation of an all-human council? I know I'm probably nitpicking, but it just seems like it might contradict some players idea of what the game should be.
 * As of Ascension, the Council reshuffle hasn't been finalised, and we're not sure when Galaxy takes place (I think it's probably at some point during Mass Effect) so having an asari representative might not be that odd. --Tullis 22:07, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no sign of a human council member, but the batarians have split. Since Shep didn't run across any dastardly poison plots, I'd say it takes place sometime before ME. --TheWilsonator 22:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Similarities and bases on the EU & WEU Trivia.
Just thinking some of the basic governing positions with the Citidal are quite similar to that of the EU and more specifically the WEU (Western European Union). The WEU is led by a Council assisted by a Permanent Representatives on an ambassadorial level, much like the Citadel Council and the Ambassadors. The WEU also like the Council has a number of Associate members which include members who didn't qualify for membership but not giving them complete inclusion or votes like members. With the currency that like the credit is a standered Trade currency with in the EU being the Euro, when country's moved to the Euro there were guidelines for determining the value and exchange rate from the former currency to the Euro which like the credit would vary by nation (although that is better based like the credit page. Finally the Citadel Council doesn't interfere in any specifics of any planets, they still have there heads of states and governments, the council deals with the generals of each area, like the EU which has common laws, concerning trade and crime (with a common EU convention on human rights and its own courts). This could be all coincidence but equally likely (as they could/would have had to base it on something). Just thinking this could be referenced to in the Trivia section. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 18:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * There are definitely some similarities, but also some major differences. For example, the Council Ambassadors do not assist anything, they ARE the Council. The other ambassadors from non-Council races can petition the Council, but at the end of the day all the power is held by three individuals acting as proxies for their governments. Also, the credit appears to be mandatory for Citadel races, which is not the case for the Euro, as the British have demonstrated. At the same time the credit is also supplemental, in that Citadel races (it would appear) still use their own currency in their territory. Finally, the most obvious differences, the military and direct intervention. The Council maintains a vast fleet at it's disposal, has land forces that seem to be on retainer or loan from their government, and maintain their own force of covert operatives. The Council uses these on a rather arbitrary basis, sometimes using them (as we have seen) in direct violation of other sovereign states for purposes of direct intervention. So I agree there is some similarity to the EU, but there are some big differences too, and there are also plenty of other entities (both real and fictional) that the Council also bears a resemblance to. SpartHawg948 20:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I been kind of wondering: What would the governance system of the Citadel Council classify as? A (galactic-level) supranational union? A confederation? Rorschach 416 June 7, 2010
 * That sounds like a reasonable assessment. The first one, I mean, the supranational government. It seems to me that the Citadel Council is a lot like the United Nations- an assembly of governments that come together to facilitate galactic governance, overseen by a select few members with more power than the others, which can issue resolutions (or whatever they refer to them as) which, while not legally binding still carry weight. Throw in a little dash of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (i.e. the mutual defense aspect) and it pretty well sums up the Citadel Council, at least IMO. SpartHawg948 01:16, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, IMO? What does that stand for? Rorschach 416 July 2, 2010
 * In My Opinion. Sometimes presented in modified form as IMHO, for In My Humble Opinion. SpartHawg948 00:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, IMO? What does that stand for? Rorschach 416 July 2, 2010
 * In My Opinion. Sometimes presented in modified form as IMHO, for In My Humble Opinion. SpartHawg948 00:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2: Human Council
"If you were a renegade and let the original council die in mass effect one, the new human council will refuse to meet you. You will still be granted your Spectre status back if you choose Anderson as the lead. No conditions are mentioned in this case but it is mentioned that it’s mostly symbolic since the Spectres have lost their former respect and power."

Do we have any confirmation that you're required to be Renegade for this to be the case? Alternately, is there an example for the Paragon result of installing a human council? Twilsemail 15:51, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Who is Councilor Tevos?
I haven't read the Cerberus Daily News article in question, but doesn't it seems odd for one of them to actually name the asari Councilor, while it is not only possible for the orignal asari councilor from Mass Effect to die and be succeeded by another asari, but also for the entire Council to be replaced with a human one? 85.147.165.48 22:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in all fairness, it says the asari Councilor is named Tevos. It doesn't say that Tevos is "the asari Councilor from Mass Effect". Given that the Cerberus News bit says "asari Councilor Tevos", there is nothing wrong with the way the article phrases it. SpartHawg948 22:27, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I have just read the article and it seems I was too quick to speak. The article refers to the Council around (and before) the Eden Prime incident, so it has to be that one. Thanks for answering. 85.147.165.48 23:02, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I feel the need to add a question: Is there any reason Tevos does not have her own page? I realise that the other two having pages named "Turian Councilor" and "Salarian Councilor" might seem odd, but well, we have a name, a character, a fairly long list of appearances... Why doesn't she have one? HellbirdIV 00:12, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't clear that the asari Councilor from ME is Tevos. Given the context of the article, it's likely that this individual and Tevos are one and the same, but it isn't certain. Furthermore, an article has been attempted, and there isn't enough information. What would go in the article? And what "fairly long list of appearances" is being referred to here? SpartHawg948 06:16, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that the Cerberus News article refers to the Asari councilor at the time of ME, since there'd be nothing relevant to that article - from an In-universe perspective - coming from someone responsible for someone completley different than the Councilor who was saved/killed during the battle for the Citadel. Also note how the article goes out of its way to avoid mentioning wether or not Tevos is still alive, given the choice available at the end of ME. As for the "list of appearances" I at least recall a mention of her being in the prequel book, Revelations is it? I could of course be mistaken, as this is something I read on this very talk page, but either way the Council members aren't exactly minor characters in ME. HellbirdIV 12:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know that was the same asari in Revelation, which occurs 18 years prior to the events of ME and 20 years prior to ME2. While the Council Members aren't minor characters, they are also characters with very little in the way of actual character information. And, due to the nature of your conversations with them, there is very little canonical information about them. SpartHawg948 17:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Councilor Valern"
I've heard that news blip in my time playing, but I've only ever saved the council. Is that heard in ME2 if the council didn't survive ME1? Tanooki1432 15:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent question I don't know the answer to. Maybe I'll have to do some "research" and try to find out! :) SpartHawg948 19:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Council's fate after ME:Retribution
Hello, not owning the novel ME:Retribution, I have to ask: what happened to the council according to ME:Retribution?

Did they survive? If they didn't, how's the composition of the Council? What did Anderson become?

Thanks for your info.

— Pepoluan 07:39, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC, no mention is made as to whether or not the original Council survived Sovereign and Saren's attack, nor is there any mention of the composition of the Council. Retribution does state, however, that Udina is the human Councilor, and Admiral Anderson is his aide. SpartHawg948 07:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Asari Counsilor's Age
I have been led to believe that 1) Asari usually follow the advice of their elders, or "matriarchs" and 2) these can be distinguished from younger asari by their complexion. Either the second is wrong or the Asari counsilor is not a matriarch (and therefore a funny choice for counsilor). Anyone know anything about this? 84.188.225.8 16:49, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have no knowledge of the asari, remember that the name of alien races are not capitalized in the ME universe, e.g. asari, turian, human, etc, counsilor's age or that she is a matriarch. We just have no idea. If I had to guess, she propbably is a Matriarch, but then she may not be. Again we have nothing canon anyway, only guesses. Lancer1289
 * On Illium there is an ad for some skin lotion that is supposed to be able to completely hide somebody's matriarch state. I guess that means it does show in the complexion, but not necessarily too much on asari focused on their appearance. (So either the counsilor is a bit young for the job, or she is vain) Does that help? 84.188.231.214 15:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that really doesn’t help. I seriously doubt a newer lotion will hide everything. She could be a Matriarch or she could still be in her Matron years. While yes Matriarchs are looked to for their wisdom and their experience in asari culture, I personally think that the Councilor is either in her late Matron or early Matriarch years, but again the Councilor being a Matron isn't that farfetched or unreasonable. She may even be in her Maiden years, but I do think that one is a little out there. So how is she too young? Because that is more your personal opinions than anything and I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by vain. But again we don't have anything canon about her age, and speculation has no place in articles. Lancer1289 17:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Government structure
It is clear that the Council holds executive power, but who holds legislative and judicial power? Are their a system of courts not explained and do the ambassadors together organise the legislative? Or is the Citadel more like the UN Security Council and holds all three branches of power?--Ironreaper 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first I should point out that the UN Security Council has no judicial power. This is why they refer such cases to international tribunals. Additionally, they really have no executive power, other than the ability of the five permanent members to veto resolutions. The UN Security Council is a purely legislative organ with a purview including the establishment of sanctions, peacekeeping operations, and the authorization of military action.
 * Now, on to the point at hand: It is never explained what sort of power they (meaning the Citadel Council this time) do and don't have, not really. From what we've seen, they occupy a solely legislative role, being able to pass resolutions that really have no power whatsoever in and of themselves, relying instead on the willingness of the participating governments to carry them out. Should the governments in question decide not to listen to the Council, all indications are that the Council would be rendered impotent. So I'd describe the Council as a solely legislative organization. Any enforcement power is provided by member states, and we've seen no real information of judicial structure yet. SpartHawg948 03:46, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually the UN Charter grants the Security Council the executive and judicial powers as well as legislative.

Article 33 The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Their are a lot of other articles that outline their powers, but the Security Council can, when it has determined the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, decide upon negotiations, look into non military solutions and finally military solutions. Also "no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council." The judicial side is a bit weaker as "the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice."

Also I am curious, since the Council is defined by the Codex as an executive council. Does the Council have authority over its military such as the Citadel fleet, or does the real authority over those ships belong to the member species they belong to? The news announcements make it pretty clear its the member species (mostly the asari republic and turan hierarchy) are providing the ships that make up the Citadel forces, but if the Council holds little real power, are those ships still part of their respective governments armed forces? If the Citadel Council had control of that fleet, then it would be more believable they held executive power.--Ironreaper 06:15, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the information we have, the forces in the Citadel Fleet are under the authority of the Council, as it is stated in the Codex and in the dialogue that all species, especially the Council species must contribute ships and troops to the Citadel Fleets. Don't forget also that the Council positioned forces at Mass Relays connecting Citadel and Terminus space. However I think it also works like the UN and NATO do. The UN can deploy forces of its member nations as peacekeeping forces and as a joint coalition from the various armed forces of the members of the UN. Those forces then are transferred to a joint UN command and are under their operational control. However, each member nation still has authority over its own forces, but not those under the UN or NATO operational control. Those forces are still members of their own armed forces, but are UN Operational Control. Nations can pull their troops at any time, but until they do, those troops are under the command of the UN, not their respective host nation. At least that is now I understand that working.
 * As to how this applies to the Council. The respective members of the Citadel contribute to the Citadel Fleets, but then those ships and troops are no longer under Alliance, turian, or salarian command. They are under the command of the Citadel Council and are integrated into their command forces. I'm sure If I got anything wrong, I'll be corrected, but that is how I understand how this works. Personally, BioWare seems to have based a lot on how the UN and other military alliances work. Lancer1289 06:31, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah... about that... the UN Security Council can call upon parties to settle their disputes by such means. Said parties are under no such obligation to do so, however, nor does the UN Security Council possess any way of compelling them to do so. So yeah... they really aren't empowered to take any sort of executive action. Let's look at what you said: "the Security Council can, when it has determined the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, decide upon negotiations, look into non military solutions and finally military solutions." (emphasis added) They can decide that negotiations are needed and call upon parties to negotiate. They can't compel anyone to. They can look into non-military or military action, but can't take that action themselves, being 100% dependent upon member nations to do it. As for the judicial side, nothing in the section you quoted states anything about the UN Security Council having judicial powers. In fact, it pretty clearly says the UN Security Council should not seek to take on a judicial role. "the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice". I can't find one or two points to emphasize, because the entire passage says that the Security Council needs to "take into consideration" (international legalese for "remember") that legal disputes "should as a general rule" (international legalese for "should") "be referred by the parties" (the states involved, not the UN Security Council) "to the International Court of Justice" (which, unlike the UN Security Council, is the internationally agreed-upon international judicial body). So yeah, I stand by my remarks about the UN Security Council being a solely legislative entity. After all, even the U.S. Congress can do pretty much all the things the Security Council is empowered to do by Article 33. SpartHawg948 06:44, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Just want to point out, the UN is not a military alliance. Not be a long shot. NATO is. The Warsaw Pact was. The UN? No so much... SpartHawg948 06:44, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to get into this, but I'm sorry Lancer, there was just so much wrong about how you described the UN. For starters, the UN operates nothing like NATO. Contrary to your comment, the UN has no ability whatsoever to deploy the troops of its member nations. None. Military deployments are a strictly internal matter. The UN can ask member nations if they will deploy troops. That's it. The forces deployed are then placed under the command of an officer from one of those nations. This officer has overall command of the forces, and answers to a civilian administrator from the UN. The UN only has limited control over the troops involved, as obviously no nation would consent to handing its troops over solely to UN command. The UN is limited in what it can order these troops to do. At no point are troops sent to help the UN ever outside of the operational command of their own country's government. This is a convoluted system which arises in large part because, unlike NATO, the UN isn't a military alliance. It's a diplomatic organization. It has no unified command structure that all member nations sign on to, like NATO does. There is no permanent Supreme Allied Commander, like there is in NATO. Each peacekeeping operation is an ad hoc organization thrown together solely to keep the peace in that one area, and even while in the field, the mission of the troops is vastly different from that of NATO troops in the field. This is why you would never see UN peacekeepers engaged in large-scale offensive maneuvers like NATO troops are taking part in right now in Afghanistan. Hope this clears up some misconceptions. SpartHawg948 06:54, December 7, 2010 (UTC)