Cthul Murgos
TNPer
This language is due to be added anyway, to accomodate the Minister of Finance, once things settle down.
Colonization and Annexation
- Thread starter Hersfold
- Start date
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Minister of Finance and a Minister of Territories?
why haven't I heard about this?
why haven't I heard about this?
Byardkuria
TNPer
Because we have neither, and the need for either is questionable.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
I like the sound of Minister of the Exchequer and Foreign Office a lot better!
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just have 'affiliated' regions that are essentially self-governing (determine their own style of democratic government) but whose members act as full members of the RA and can be elected to goverment positions as though they were in TNP? Would this idea grossly complicate someone's job?
OK, here's the gist - say there's an independent region that wishes to become an 'anex' region to TNP? They have their own delegate, they have their own government. How would this be accomplished, how would they be represented in the RA of TNP and its government and what purpose would it serve that a treaty or alliance wouldn't better serve?
Americanicus I
TNPer
I really like the idea a lot. It would extend TNP influence across NS.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
assuming it is passed and continually supported by both regions and we have the means to support it.
Anyone with any thoughts as to changing the legalese of it?
Americanicus I
TNPer
Basically my stance; similar to the officer commission idea, except this would be totally civilian (NPA shouldn't be allowed to colonize a region). But the civilian citizen, I think, should have freedom of movement and be allowed to start experimental colonies, if only by special permission of the Minister of Territories.
Nuclearweapons
TNPer
I like this idea. The North Pacific needs to spread its influence out. 
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
I agree, especially with the freedom of movement idea.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Then what are we waiting for? Whats stopping us from putting this to vote?
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I'm not yet pursuaded that the time has come for such legislation, if it ever comes.
It implies a certain militaristic stance that I am not pursuaded is appropriaye for a feeder region that epouses fundamental principles based on democratic values.
It implies a certain militaristic stance that I am not pursuaded is appropriaye for a feeder region that epouses fundamental principles based on democratic values.
Indeed. It is of my opinion that instead of a imperialist militaristic stance that we seem to be arguing back and forth here, that we promote, if we are to do this of course, a Commonwealth approach.
In my idea, there will of course need to be some changes to the constitution. Firstly, in order to encompass the fact that we aren't imperialist but willing to allow regions to join TNP, I propose that to start with the formal name of our region change to the Commonwealth of The North Pacific. Unfortunently that would mean some re-writes to the constitution, but we are all ready doing this already.
Next, I believe that interested regions that wish to join the commonwealth must hold a discussion in their own legislatures. Obviously, they must recognize that if they accept, they will become a Commonwealth Territory/Community of the Commonwealth of The North Pacific. They should be able to send representatives from their region to TNP. They should provide soldiers for the Commonwealth Military, which is basically the NPA but would encompass soliders from all the commonwealth regions. Laws that we pass here should affect them, unless of course for obvious reasons the particular law can't. However, they are free to hold their own internal elections, have their legislatures, and are free to vote on their representatives to the Commonwealth.
Stating all this, though I know many would not like it in the least, adding a new body to us, but in order for fair representation of all the bodies of the Commonwealth, perhaps instead of letting the representatives of the Commonwealth Territories sit in the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, we form a Commonwealth Council or something, where The North Pacific and the Commonwealth Territories would send representatives and discuss issues related to the stability of the commonwealth and inter-commonwealth relations?
Oh yes, the North Pacific Army or any group from The North Pacific should not be allowed to "colonize" any region. Joining the Commonwealth should be democratic and fair to all parties.
Thats my
on it...
In my idea, there will of course need to be some changes to the constitution. Firstly, in order to encompass the fact that we aren't imperialist but willing to allow regions to join TNP, I propose that to start with the formal name of our region change to the Commonwealth of The North Pacific. Unfortunently that would mean some re-writes to the constitution, but we are all ready doing this already.
Next, I believe that interested regions that wish to join the commonwealth must hold a discussion in their own legislatures. Obviously, they must recognize that if they accept, they will become a Commonwealth Territory/Community of the Commonwealth of The North Pacific. They should be able to send representatives from their region to TNP. They should provide soldiers for the Commonwealth Military, which is basically the NPA but would encompass soliders from all the commonwealth regions. Laws that we pass here should affect them, unless of course for obvious reasons the particular law can't. However, they are free to hold their own internal elections, have their legislatures, and are free to vote on their representatives to the Commonwealth.
Stating all this, though I know many would not like it in the least, adding a new body to us, but in order for fair representation of all the bodies of the Commonwealth, perhaps instead of letting the representatives of the Commonwealth Territories sit in the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, we form a Commonwealth Council or something, where The North Pacific and the Commonwealth Territories would send representatives and discuss issues related to the stability of the commonwealth and inter-commonwealth relations?
Oh yes, the North Pacific Army or any group from The North Pacific should not be allowed to "colonize" any region. Joining the Commonwealth should be democratic and fair to all parties.
Thats my
on it...
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The constitution already authorizes the creation of a commonwealth relationship with other regions, and provides for a mechanism for shared citizenship as well as a basis to create and maintain commonwealth relationships in the Legal Code, so I'm not sure why any amendments are necessary. (See Article II Section 4.) I'd have to go back and look at TNP Law 9, but there may be some statutory treatment on this subject already as well.
As far as the NPA is concerned, I believe that one major argument that was raised against this topic when it was first raised a few months back was the fact that the NPA has not yet been rebuilt sufficiently. In any event, a political commonwealth approach might be more in keeping with our democratic values and institutions. The fact that amendments are proposed and even adopted is a reflects that our law is a living organic document and that it evolves as we work with it. But I'm not even sure that we are ready for a commonwealth system yet either.
As an aside, if and when a political commonwealth becomes appropriate, there is nothing preventing its creation through a treaty with the signatories adhering to the treaty (ratification) as they join the commonwealth.
As far as the NPA is concerned, I believe that one major argument that was raised against this topic when it was first raised a few months back was the fact that the NPA has not yet been rebuilt sufficiently. In any event, a political commonwealth approach might be more in keeping with our democratic values and institutions. The fact that amendments are proposed and even adopted is a reflects that our law is a living organic document and that it evolves as we work with it. But I'm not even sure that we are ready for a commonwealth system yet either.
As an aside, if and when a political commonwealth becomes appropriate, there is nothing preventing its creation through a treaty with the signatories adhering to the treaty (ratification) as they join the commonwealth.
Militarily speaking, no, at this time we are not. As Minister of Defence, though I have great faith and trust in my troops, I at this time could not even think of stationing troops in a commonwealth territory these days and risk the compromise of several missions that are in play. Unless the commonwealth territory provides troops, I can't see any military purpose for holding these regions in our sphere, if you will. I know, complete 180 from my last post, but that was just an idea that popped into my head.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
we're still waiting for a vote on the Amendment Process too and the bill to correct the mistakes of the RA merger.
Grenval
TNPer
So I pretty much joined the Regional Assembly just so I could post in this thread.
First of all, I think it is really exciting to see a feeder region like The North Pacific implementing this idea. I hope it is successful. I think it marks an underlying attitude shift within NationStates itself.
Several people have raised concerns about the creation of new colonies. I share a similar concern. For any of you that know me, you know that I think NationStates needs consolidation, not further expansion. I agree with Haor Chall that this legislation, as it currently stands, begs for too many new regions with too few new nations.
The current remedy to this situation is a sort of contract system with new colonies. I think that a contract is a start, but needs more work, and I will expand upon that idea later in my post.
But first, I would like to question the necessity of colonies at all. It is rare to see a colony program implemented successfully. (Keep in mind that I am referring to colonies separately from annexed regions right now.) In fact, the only region that has successfully implemented a colonization program that I know of is Gatesville, and they were only successful because they had a driving force, the need to control the United Nations. So what, then, is the driving force behind The North Pacific's colonies? I have thought about this in relation to other regions, and the only answer I could find was to inspire leadership. By that, I mean when nations break out of their traditional home where they played an important but ultimately unnecessary role (ie: deputy or army officer, something that can be easily replaced) and are forced to become young leaders of new regions, sometimes they step up and meet the challenge, thus undergoing a transformation from an active player on the regional level to a world-class player who can perform under any situation (these are the Blackbirds and Unistruts of our game).
So that is the only reason I can think of. Unfortunately, these nations only step up sometimes. When they do, you have just created a new "great." But when they don't, you often drive the nation into apathy and inactivity and end up with what Haor Chall fears, a region with three nations who answer issues and don't even know this forum exists. In short, it is a risky business.
So the question you must ask: Is it worth it?
If you decide it is worth it, then I suggest a contract. But you might want to make it more rigorous. For example, set up target recruitment goals and citizenship goals (citizens being nations that actually join the forum and participate). You could add in other clauses, such as each colony must volunteer two UN Nations for the North Pacific Army and one nation for the diplomatic corps or something like that. You could also use a similar contract to ensure the activity of annexed regions.
Additionally, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of forums. Are these regions going to keep their original home forum? Will they be given a special forum section on this, s13 North Pacific Forum, that only members of the colonized region can see or post under? What sort of access with North Pacificians have on colonized forums, if the colonies are allowed to keep their home forums?
Furthermore, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of dual citizenship and how that will work. Should dual citizenship be a required part of every colony? Should it be forbidden? Should it be considered on a case-by-case basis? How will you handle vote stacking if dual citizenship is allowed? For example, if a colony allows North Pacificians to vote in its internal administration issues, North Pacificians could stack the vote to create an outcome favorable to the mother country that the colonized region itself would not have authorized. Is that a crime? Is it a risk the colonized region takes if it allows dual citizenship?
And finally, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of independence. If a colony wants to declare independence, will there be a special process which the region goes through? Will independence be considered a declaration of war against The North Pacific? What will happen?
I hope you will consider some of these questions. I have a few other thoughts bumping around in my head, mostly military stuff, and I will throw a few out right now, but I won't go into any detail because I haven't thought them through all the way. But the North Pacific Army should consider special measures with founderless regions. You should also consider mandatory consent by the founder and/or UN Delegate of his or her password (although that might be going too far). And of course, you should consider posting UN switchables in every colony to be used as part of an internal resistence mechanism in the event of attack.
First of all, I think it is really exciting to see a feeder region like The North Pacific implementing this idea. I hope it is successful. I think it marks an underlying attitude shift within NationStates itself.
Several people have raised concerns about the creation of new colonies. I share a similar concern. For any of you that know me, you know that I think NationStates needs consolidation, not further expansion. I agree with Haor Chall that this legislation, as it currently stands, begs for too many new regions with too few new nations.
The current remedy to this situation is a sort of contract system with new colonies. I think that a contract is a start, but needs more work, and I will expand upon that idea later in my post.
But first, I would like to question the necessity of colonies at all. It is rare to see a colony program implemented successfully. (Keep in mind that I am referring to colonies separately from annexed regions right now.) In fact, the only region that has successfully implemented a colonization program that I know of is Gatesville, and they were only successful because they had a driving force, the need to control the United Nations. So what, then, is the driving force behind The North Pacific's colonies? I have thought about this in relation to other regions, and the only answer I could find was to inspire leadership. By that, I mean when nations break out of their traditional home where they played an important but ultimately unnecessary role (ie: deputy or army officer, something that can be easily replaced) and are forced to become young leaders of new regions, sometimes they step up and meet the challenge, thus undergoing a transformation from an active player on the regional level to a world-class player who can perform under any situation (these are the Blackbirds and Unistruts of our game).
So that is the only reason I can think of. Unfortunately, these nations only step up sometimes. When they do, you have just created a new "great." But when they don't, you often drive the nation into apathy and inactivity and end up with what Haor Chall fears, a region with three nations who answer issues and don't even know this forum exists. In short, it is a risky business.
So the question you must ask: Is it worth it?
If you decide it is worth it, then I suggest a contract. But you might want to make it more rigorous. For example, set up target recruitment goals and citizenship goals (citizens being nations that actually join the forum and participate). You could add in other clauses, such as each colony must volunteer two UN Nations for the North Pacific Army and one nation for the diplomatic corps or something like that. You could also use a similar contract to ensure the activity of annexed regions.
Additionally, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of forums. Are these regions going to keep their original home forum? Will they be given a special forum section on this, s13 North Pacific Forum, that only members of the colonized region can see or post under? What sort of access with North Pacificians have on colonized forums, if the colonies are allowed to keep their home forums?
Furthermore, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of dual citizenship and how that will work. Should dual citizenship be a required part of every colony? Should it be forbidden? Should it be considered on a case-by-case basis? How will you handle vote stacking if dual citizenship is allowed? For example, if a colony allows North Pacificians to vote in its internal administration issues, North Pacificians could stack the vote to create an outcome favorable to the mother country that the colonized region itself would not have authorized. Is that a crime? Is it a risk the colonized region takes if it allows dual citizenship?
And finally, I think the current legislation needs to specifically address the issue of independence. If a colony wants to declare independence, will there be a special process which the region goes through? Will independence be considered a declaration of war against The North Pacific? What will happen?
I hope you will consider some of these questions. I have a few other thoughts bumping around in my head, mostly military stuff, and I will throw a few out right now, but I won't go into any detail because I haven't thought them through all the way. But the North Pacific Army should consider special measures with founderless regions. You should also consider mandatory consent by the founder and/or UN Delegate of his or her password (although that might be going too far). And of course, you should consider posting UN switchables in every colony to be used as part of an internal resistence mechanism in the event of attack.
Grenval
TNPer
Forgive the double post, but the following legislation was written up in the Senate of The Grenvali United by myself a several other Senators in late December, 2005. Obviously it was written for a different region and different time, but it may serve as an interesting point of comparison.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Here are the current provisions of the Constitution and the Legal Code relevant to this discussion. It would seem to me that the direction of these provisions (establish by treaty, etc.) is both flexible but provides a procedural road map that can be followed:
Constitution Article II Section 4:
TNP Law 9 (as amended by TNP Law 12):
Grenval
TNPer
Given these laws, it would seem to me the answers to my questions would be done on a case-by-case basis.
According to Article II Section 2 (if amened as this legislation calls for) and Article II Section 4, the nations of the colonized region would be granted membership in the North Pacific Regional Assembly. But what about members of the North Pacific Regional Assembly? Will they be granted some form of citizenship within the colonized region if requested?
According to Article II Section 2 (if amened as this legislation calls for) and Article II Section 4, the nations of the colonized region would be granted membership in the North Pacific Regional Assembly. But what about members of the North Pacific Regional Assembly? Will they be granted some form of citizenship within the colonized region if requested?
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Grenval, my point is that given the provisions of Article II Section 4, and TNP Law 9, I'm not sure that any further amendment of the Constitution is even necessary.
Depending on when and what the region chooses to do in this area, other laws may be to be adopted in order to assure consistent application, but clearly, the open-ended nature of a treaty mechanism is already permitted under TNP Law 9.
Depending on when and what the region chooses to do in this area, other laws may be to be adopted in order to assure consistent application, but clearly, the open-ended nature of a treaty mechanism is already permitted under TNP Law 9.
Grenval
TNPer
Oh I was never trying to suggest further amending the Constitution, I meant for the Colonization and Annexation bill and my suggestions to go into a piece of supplemental legislation. Of course, I just noticed that the Colonization and Annexation bill that Hersfold first quoted at the beginning of this thread was intended as an amendment to the Constitution and not as supplemental legislation as I originally thought. That's what I get for skimming and skipping the "obvious" stuff like titles.
But I agree with you, the current Constitution does have an open-ended view of treaties. However, if you wanted to standardize colonies and annexed regions as separate from treatied allies, I would suggest that you consider putting some of my ideas into supplemental legislation.
But if you intend to work only within the current Constitution and the proposed amendment with no additional legislation, then I don't think my ideas need to be incorporated, but rather should be left as food for thought when forming ad-hoc treaties with potential colonies and annexed regions.