Emergency Law

[SillyString]

I would like to propose the following bill:

Chapter 6, Section 6.8 of the Legal Code will be struck.

A new Chapter will be added to the Legal Code immediately following Chapter 6, reading:

Chapter 7: Emergency Situations

Section 7.1: Disease Control
1. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency.
2. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
3. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
4. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
5. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
6. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Section 7.2: Forum Access
7. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency.
8. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.
9. During a forum access emergency, no resident may be penalized for failing to take actions for which access to the forum is required.
10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropirate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Section 7.3: WA Delegacy
11. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency.
12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.
13. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
14. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.

Basically, what this does is establish a defined space for us to stick regional emergency considerations, including the existing law on zombies, the debated but never passed motion on forum access, and my own thoughts on delegacy possession. The first section is simply copy-pasted from the existing legal code, so what I'm really looking for comments on are the second two sections, of my own drafting. The second I pulled a fair amount of language from the relevant motion, but the wording on clause 10 doesn't seem quite right to me. The third was entirely my own language and I definitely need some other pairs of eyes to read it over.

 

[RPI]

I'd say do this on Clause 10:

10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

 

[falapatorius]

I've no comment on Section 7.1. I was against it when it was proposed. No change there.

7. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency.

This is a forum issue, and is separate from the governance of the region. It may affect governance, but Clause 9 can rectify that. So nope to this clause.

8. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.

Other than the emergency reference, this is a good idea.

10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

I didn't like this as written, but RPI's proposed edit made it even worse. Too much ambiguity.

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

I think Clause 11 is sufficient.

 

[RPI]

I didn't like this as written, but RPI's proposed edit made it even worse. Too much ambiguity.

I really just wanted to fix a spelling mistake I wasn't going to go into much detail, I'll leave that to others

 

[plembobria]

I agree with Falap.

 

[SillyString]

7. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency.

This is a forum issue, and is separate from the governance of the region. It may affect governance, but Clause 9 can rectify that. So nope to this clause.

I don't see why a forum issue can't be considered emergency. If the forum went down for a month, we wouldn't be able to govern pretty much at all. We'd need to set up a temporary forum to get anything done, and there's no process for changing forums - it'd have to be done by emergency power.

8. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.

Other than the emergency reference, this is a good idea.

No action by a government official can violate the legal code or the constitution, except in the case of an emergency. Declaring it an emergency is required for this clause to be legal.

10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

I didn't like this as written, but RPI's proposed edit made it even worse. Too much ambiguity.

I don't like it either! That's why I'm looking for feedback on improving the phrasing! And no, I don't really agree with removing reasonable.

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

I think Clause 11 is sufficient.

[/quote]I don't - it doesn't account for a threat to the delegacy that the delegate isn't functionally capable of handling, like a tarter with more influence than they can ban or eject, or one during a temporary inability from them to access NS proper. It's not like the SC is a terrified and reactionary body - it's not going to go around declaring emergencies willy-nilly, and even if it did, the Delegate doesn't have to give the delegacy to anyone. But it's very important to preserve flexibility when we're thinking about unknown and unpredictable threats we might face.

Edit for a sentence that could be read two ways.

 

[RPI]

And no, I don't really agree with removing reasonable.

You know, looking back and re-reading it I'm unsure why I took that out A bit needs to be done with that clause, but I don't know how it should be reworded.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Considering that forum activity is required for citizenship, it makes total sense to treat a forum outage as an emergency. I suppose there is a legal route to changing forums, by amending this clause of the constitution:

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.

However, there is no provision for using a temporary forum, and it makes sense to exercise emergency powers to do so, especially considering that legal avenues to changing the forum take place...on the forum. This bill would be very effective in avoiding chaos and disjunction in the case of a prolonged outage.

 

[plembobria]

I find agreeing with someone arguing with Asta often results in humiliation.

 

[falapatorius]

I don't see why a forum issue can't be considered emergency. If the forum went down for a month, we wouldn't be able to govern pretty much at all. We'd need to set up a temporary forum to get anything done, and there's no process for changing forums - it'd have to be done by emergency power.

Perhaps, but if you really think about it, the whole idea of governance via an off-site forum is a construct we've all bought into. There will always be a Delegate (per gameplay mechanics). Sure, a Delegate may go rogue (or be supplanted), but the mechanisms we've established here will still apply (unless you're saying they won't.. which doesn't make sense because there's always Clause 11 of the BOR). The SC can still protect the region without the forums. The Court may be silenced (please, no applause), but ultimately life will go on til the forums are restored.

No action by a government official can violate the legal code or the constitution, except in the case of an emergency. Declaring it an emergency is required for this clause to be legal.

Alright. However, the Delegate can post updates in the WFE. If the Delegate is unable/unwilling to do so, it's not like no one will post on the RMB or TG the region. I know I would.

I don't - it doesn't account for a threat to the delegacy that the delegate isn't functionally capable of handling, like a tarter with more influence than they can ban or eject

You have a point. Atm, I have more influence than you, so if (you were the Delegate) I could tart my way past you (not that I would), it could cause problems. I'll cede that.

I find agreeing with someone arguing with Asta often results in humiliation.

Not necessarily. Silly did ask for opinions. I can't spell 'ful sepport'.

I think some admin opinions on the 'emergency' issue couldn't hurt.

 

[SillyString]

I don't see why a forum issue can't be considered emergency. If the forum went down for a month, we wouldn't be able to govern pretty much at all. We'd need to set up a temporary forum to get anything done, and there's no process for changing forums - it'd have to be done by emergency power.

Perhaps, but if you really think about it, the whole idea of governance via an off-site forum is a construct we've all bought into. There will always be a Delegate (per gameplay mechanics). Sure, a Delegate may go rogue (or be supplanted), but the mechanisms we've established here will still apply (unless you're saying they won't.. which doesn't make sense because there's always Clause 11 of the BOR). The SC can still protect the region without the forums. The Court may be silenced (please, no applause), but ultimately life will go on til the forums are restored.

While it's necessarily true that we've all bought into running ourselves via an offsite forum, it also necessarily follows from that that without access to that offsite forum, we cannot continue to run ourselves in the way that we have mutually agreed. The RMB and IRC are not equipped to handle things like legislative discussion, ongoing security concerns, election campaigning and voting, ministry planning, military operations, and really anything except casual chat. Without a forum, almost all of what we do as a government cannot function... and that counts as an emergency to me.

As a side note, I quoted the wrong bit about the legality issue. I meant that to apply to the clause about not receiving any penalties - in the absence of an actual emergency, the laws about activity/vacancy have to be followed.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

At first blush, this looks good. Can someone with nefarious eyes check it over for loopholes?

 

[punk d]

I'm fine with this. I think it's good to provide guidance in emergency situations.

I think forum outage would be an emergency because our government is here. You blow up Congress or Parliament even if the legislators were gone, would still cause a lot of difficulty for the government to function.

 

[Romanoffia]

Considering that forum activity is required for citizenship, it makes total sense to treat a forum outage as an emergency. I suppose there is a legal route to changing forums, by amending this clause of the constitution:

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.

However, there is no provision for using a temporary forum, and it makes sense to exercise emergency powers to do so, especially considering that legal avenues to changing the forum take place...on the forum. This bill would be very effective in avoiding chaos and disjunction in the case of a prolonged outage.

One thing we can look into is having some kind of TNP "Emergency Broadcast Sytem" that establishes a temporary forum to be used only in emergency situations should the main forum be down for a prolonged time.

At first blush, this looks good. Can someone with nefarious eyes check it over for loopholes?

Section 7.3: WA Delegacy

11. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency.

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

13. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.

14. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.

I can't find anything that could easily be used for nefarious purposes other than somewhat nebulous wording in certain parts, for instance, a more refined wording or #11 could read:

"11. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or lawfully acting in-game Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting legally permitted to be the in-game Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency." just for sake of clarity.

Also, it might be worth adding in a clarification of what defines "reasonable actions" the government can take so as to preclude any actions which would be tantamount to suspend, in actuallity,the Constitution, Legal Code or portions thereof except where provided by in the Law or Constitution or which is necessary in the event of a usurpation, rogue action, or resulting from invasion or war.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure I understand your proposed changes, Roman. In the draft, "lawful or acting Delegate" refers to either the person elected as delegate, or the person who has assumed the duties of delegate (VD or SC member). Changing it to "Lawfully acting in-game delegate" sort of circumvents the point, because it doesn't clarify who is acting lawfully when they're serving as delegate (and potentially opens us up to weirdness if the legal delegate commits some crime unrelated to the delegacy, like fraud or something). And the second bit is similar - the point of this section is to open up who is legally permitted to be the in-game delegate under certain circumstances. Changing this clause could result in a circle, where an emergency happens when an SC member takes the delegacy instead of the VD, then this section is invoked, then because the SC member is now legally authorized to take the delegacy the emergency ends, at which point they're no longer authorized to take the delegacy...

Can you explain a bit more what possible loopholes your changes are seeking to close?

 

[Flemingovia]

My objection to this is the same as my objection to a lot of our laws: unnecessary bloat.

Justification for this law includes the hypothetical scenario that we *might* one day get a denial of service for a month. We never have; it is never likely, but we *might*.

TNP used once to be sensible and pragmatic. We did not need unnecessary legislation becuase if a scenario arose that was not covered, we discussed it and dealt with it. Alas, now we have a bunch of middle-management in the region who feel they cannot fart unless there is a regulation permitting it and instructing them precisely how they can break wind.

This is unnecessary, and so I will be voting against. If it passes I will immediately bring to the floor of the chamber the Passing Wind (2015) Regulation Act, to help those who have been holding it in because our laws do not cover it.

 

[RPI]

My objection to this is the same as my objection to a lot of our laws: unnecessary bloat.

Justification for this law includes the hypothetical scenario that we *might* one day get a denial of service for a month. We never have; it is never likely, but we *might*.

TNP used once to be sensible and pragmatic. We did not need unnecessary legislation becuase if a scenario arose that was not covered, we discussed it and dealt with it. Alas, now we have a bunch of middle-management in the region who feel they cannot fart unless there is a regulation permitting it and instructing them precisely how they can break wind.

This is unnecessary, and so I will be voting against. If it passes I will immediately bring to the floor of the chamber the Passing Wind (2015) Regulation Act, to help those who have been holding it in because our laws do not cover it.

Yes... we might. That's a pretty good reason to legislate, as long as it is something worth legislating. Common sense would dictate that the Passing Wind (2015) Regulation Act would *not* be useful. This proposal by SS deals with something of actual importance.

 

[Eluvatar]

Perhaps it might be good to recycle the word "serving" from the SC law? I may be misremembering precisely how it's defined there.

 

[SillyString]

Justification for this law includes the hypothetical scenario that we *might* one day get a denial of service for a month. We never have; it is never likely, but we *might*.

That's not justification for this law, actually. It is possible that it might happen and it would be good to have a way to deal with that (and really, when it happens is so not an optimal time to be fixing our laws to deal with it), but I am considering much more mundane situations - like the forum being down for a few days (which has happened, and easily can again), and members losing their position or their citizenship because they were near the end of the allotted period and were unable to log in in time due to the forum going down. If I go on vacation for (an announced) ten days and then the forum is down for the four following that, it's nonsensical to say that I've vacated my office.

Elu, I'll look into that.

 

[SillyString]

Perhaps it might be good to recycle the word "serving" from the SC law? I may be misremembering precisely how it's defined there.

It isn't.

I'm also not sure "the nation/person serving as delegate" is less wordy or more clear than "the legal or acting delegate". In fact, I think it might be less clear, since without explicitly defining "serving" to mean "legal or acting", then anybody who takes the seat can argue correctly that they are serving as delegate.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropirate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Most of this is redundant with clause 11 of the Bill of Rights, so I think we can take the redundant parts out. Consider substituting:

10. If appropriate, the governmental authorities of the region will use emergency powers granted by the Bill of Rights to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

I also have a few suggestions about the last section, per your request in the OP.

11. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency.

Rather than try to catalog all the different ways that the legal or acting delegate loses access to regional controls, I think we can just say:

11. Any situation in which legal or acting delegate loses access to regional controls shall be considered an actual emergency.

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

I know what you're trying to say here, but I think it could be clearer. How about:

12. The Security Council may declare an actual emergency related to the delegacy by majority vote, and such a declaration would be legally binding.

This clarifies that a declaration by the security council could be used to invoke clause 11 powers. However, I'm not entirely sure this clause is necessary. What sort of situation do you envision this clause being invoked during?

The rest of it all looks good to me. What do you think of the clauses I've suggested?

 

[SillyString]

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

I know what you're trying to say here, but I think it could be clearer. How about:

12. The Security Council may declare an actual emergency related to the delegacy by majority vote, and such a declaration would be legally binding.

This clarifies that a declaration by the security council could be used to invoke clause 11 powers. However, I'm not entirely sure this clause is necessary. What sort of situation do you envision this clause being invoked during?

A newly elected delegate facing a takeover threat from a nation with enough influence that they cannot either eject or ban them. In that case, the SC would declare an emergency and push the highest endorsed person in the LOS (SC or VD) who has enough influence to remove that person (hopefully all of them would) into the delegacy.

Alternatively, a coordinated threat involving multiple high-influence nations, where the no single nation has sufficient influence to remove all the threats, but where the delegate, VD, and SC have enough combined.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Ok, I think there are good reasons to keep the clause in. I could envision ways that the clause could be subverted by a corrupt SC, but considering the nature of the body, I don't think that's a major concern. If we can't trust the SC to police itself, we have way bigger problems.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I am concerned that specifying what is an actual emergency could be used to limit Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights to just those circumstances. That would be an easy example of the "unintended consequences" of this proposal. One may say otherwise, but there's a rule in interpreting legislation that if only certain situations are specified by law, it excludes all other possible situations not specified. We would be better off with nothing being adopted than leave open the door for such an interpretation.
If this proposal is to move forward, there definitely needs to be a clause that makes clear that these examples are not the only actual emergencies that could arise under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights, so as to avoid that easily apparent unintended consequence.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The Bill of Rights is supreme to the legal code. The legal code cannot limit the meaning of the bill of rights, only the other way around. Interpreting this bill to limit the meaning of clause 11 would be profoundly wrong, and adding in a clause specifying that other emergencies exist is redundant with the BOR.

However, it might be worth considering adding a section for "general emergencies" just so that we have a procedure in place for declaring them.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Keep in mind that the BOR deliberately did not define what an emergency could be. And rules of legislative interpretation generally being what they are, someone will, sooner or later, attempt the argument I raised in my prior post. Which is why the statute need to be clear that its' effect is not to define what are and are not emergencies.
That the BOR does not define emergency was a deliberate decision so that Clause 11 could be as flexible as possible. We would be better off with no law at all on the topic, than a law that could be bent to severely limit "emergency" to specific statutory circumstances. It is dangerous to assume, as you are doing, COE, that that argument I pose would never be raised and that it would never carry the day. I've been around too long not to realize that it could very well happen if the legislation is not properly drafted. And as it stands, it leave that argument out there to be used, and the door needs to be shut on it. I am far more aware that you'll ever be about the BOR and its intended role. I also know how its precepts can be abused from a lack of careful drafting of the Constitution and the Legal Code. And I am saying that it does not help to assume people will be reasonable on things such as this, when TNP's history has shown otherwise when care is not taken to minimize or avoid such tactics.
That is precisely why some sort of specific clarifying clause needs to be added, especially in view of a tradition of the Court to ignore common sense at its leisure.

 

[SillyString]

Sorry for my inattention, I've been a tad busy IRL. I'll update the OP tonight with new language, and COE, I like the idea for a more general section. I'll think on how to phrase that as well.

 

[Eluvatar]

Ok, I think there are good reasons to keep the clause in. I could envision ways that the clause could be subverted by a corrupt SC, but considering the nature of the body, I don't think that's a major concern. If we can't trust the SC to police itself, we have way bigger problems.

I disagree with this reasoning. As was seen in the Kemetic Republic, I think that granting sweeping emergency powers to an institution can make it more attractive to would-be coupers, and also make it more difficult to legally deal with them.

I also am not sure that the Security Council can fairly be considered "representatives" of the Nations of the region, as required to invoke clause 11, given that they are selected for indefinite service individually, and do not need to be re-approved.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

A quick RA vote to approve unusual states of emergency might work, no?

We could grant the chair of the SC the ability to bring such matters to an emergency vote of the RA?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Ah, good points, Elu. Allowing the SC to declare an emergency would be against clause 11.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Ok, I think there are good reasons to keep the clause in. I could envision ways that the clause could be subverted by a corrupt SC, but considering the nature of the body, I don't think that's a major concern. If we can't trust the SC to police itself, we have way bigger problems.

I disagree with this reasoning. As was seen in the Kemetic Republic, I think that granting sweeping emergency powers to an institution can make it more attractive to would-be coupers, and also make it more difficult to legally deal with them.

I also am not sure that the Security Council can fairly be considered "representatives" of the Nations of the region, as required to invoke clause 11, given that they are selected for indefinite service individually, and do not need to be re-approved.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

A quick RA vote to approve unusual states of emergency might work, no?

We could grant the chair of the SC the ability to bring such matters to an emergency vote of the RA?

Keep in mind that the BoR uses very generalized language and was drafted that wat because at the time the structure of the "governmental authorities of the region" and the nature of the processes for the "Nations of the region or their representatives" to act were unknown. Each Constitution and Legal Code has structured the government in different ways, so Clause 11's emergency powers should be read in a more "generalized" way, and the general principles the BoR represents is always adaptable to whatever structure is put in place as to the "governmental authorities of the region" and the nature of the processes for the "Nations of the region or their representatives."

The SC is created by the Constitution and the Legal Code, which was adopted by the Regional Assembly, and thus, could be delegated authority in the area of emergencies when necessary, such as, where a response is needed before the R.A. could reasonably be expected to complete a vote. (But it can be more than just that situation.)

Elu, I think you are attempting to read the BoR too narrowly when it is not necessary to do so, especially with respect to Clause 11.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

There is no reasonable reading of our laws that could identify SC members as the representatives of the nations of the region.

 

[Eluvatar]

In the bill I would replace:

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

with:

12. The Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, may ask for an immediate emergency vote of the Regional Assembly to declare additional delegacy emergencies.

 

[Tomb]

In the bill I would replace:

12. The Security Council is authorized to declare additional delegacy emergencies by majority vote.

with:

12. The Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, may ask for an immediate emergency vote of the Regional Assembly to declare additional delegacy emergencies.

I agree with Eluvatar on this edition of #12.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

There is no reasonable reading of our laws that could identify SC members as the representatives of the nations of the region.

And I disagree with your narrow view on the question.

The Regional Assembly by virtue of creating the Security Council in the Constitution and the Legal Code has exercised sufficient authority as the voice of the nations of TNP, and its representives, and the existence of the S.C. thereby puts it in position to act under the BoR when an emergency exists and it is reasonably necessary in that emergency for the S.C. to act.

Remember also that the SC membership have taken (or should have) an oath of office in support of the democratic principles of TNP, and that gives its role a democraticv and not an autocractic veneer.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

But the SC does not directly *represent* the nations of the region. We have lifetime terms. You were made an SC member in 2011, and there are only a handful of citizens who were RA members in that time. In a few years, the same will be true of me. At the moment that an SC member is appointed, you could argue that they are representative of the nations. But the longer they retain their position, and the more the RA changes, the less representative they become. The only accountability measure in place for members of the SC is recall, which requires a two thirds vote.

The SC is in place to monitor regional security, make recommendations when appropriate, and take action when absolutely necessary. I think it's inappropriate to vest important decision-making power in an un-elected body, and in this case, the Bill of Rights prevents it by requiring these decisions to be made by representatives of the nations.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

By that logic, the Constitution and the Legal Code are stale as soon as they were enacted, no matter how frequently or infrequently they are amended.

And you forget that the RA does have the authority to remove an SC member, and the oddball reinstatement procedure that you help enact recently is also an indication of the ongoing renewal of authority for the SC to act.

There will be times, sooner or later, when action is needed more quickly than the R.A. can respond, or risk having an acute minority approve actions on an emergency basis that goes against the majority of the voting citizens in the R.A. In other words, sometimes actions need to be takrn faster than an RA vote can take place. The logical solutin would be to allow the SC to act temporarily in those circumstances while the RA gets its act together.

At some point you have to accept that the S.C. is going to take the long view of things as well as the immediate view in the existence of an emergency. It's one of the roles the SC was designed to do in the first place. COE, you need to look at Clause 11 with a broad POV and not a narrow one, as that is the view under which it was drafted and adopted in the first place.

 

[SillyString]

Here's an updated version, taking into account Elu's suggestion for other delegatial emergencies, as well as COE's suggestion for a general section:

Chapter 6, Section 6.8 of the Legal Code will be struck.

A new Chapter will be added to the Legal Code immediately following Chapter 6, reading:

Chapter 7: Emergency Situations

Section 7.1: Disease Control
1. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency.
2. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
3. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
4. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
5. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
6. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Section 7.2: Forum Access
7. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency.
8. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.
9. During a forum access emergency, no resident may be penalized for failing to take actions for which access to the forum is required.
10. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropirate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Section 7.3: WA Delegacy
11. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency.
12. 12. The Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council, may ask for an immediate emergency vote of the Regional Assembly to declare additional emergencies related to the delegacy.
13. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
14. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.

Section 7.4: General Emergencies
15. The Regional Assembly may declare additional actual emergencies by majority vote. Votes on declaring emergencies must be expedited, and may last no longer than three days.
16. During the declaration of a general emergency, or anytime afterward while the emergency is ongoing, the Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, make both binding and nonbinding recommendations to government officials regarding an appropriate course of action, enforcement of regional laws, or other matter related to the ongoing emergency.

Could use suggestions on Section 7.4 now! I'm not sure how much we want to expedite the voting, for example, or if clause 16 is a good approach.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

You still need to consider how (and who) can act in an emergency pending a R.A. vote, no matter how expedited it is. This is why I favor the use of the S.C. for that very limited period until there is in fact a completed R.A. vote.

 

[Sanctaria]

Not too gone on the RA being able to declare additional emergencies. I prefer limiting it if possible.

 

[SillyString]

Not too gone on the RA being able to declare additional emergencies. I prefer limiting it if possible.

It can't be limited. The BOR gives very broad power in that respect - the nations of the regions or the representatives of the same (in this case the RA) have basically carte Blanche. And I think that's a very good thing. We will never be able to anticipate all possible emergency scenarios, so it's critical to be able to react in the moment to new developments.

Adding the general section just codifies the procedure.