Defining Military Documents

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
One of the substantive changes in the Comstitutional Amendment that clarified the provision in Article II Section 4 on diplomatic, military and political relationships was a clause that directs that a law is to define what specific military agreements would only require Cabinet approval.

While the language in the amendment refers to both diplomatic and military agreements, I think there was an accepted consensus that the procedures for agreements on the creation of embassies, consulates, and interest sections were already in compliance with that requirement. So the purpose of this discussion is to identify and then find an appropriate definition of those types of military agreements that can be approved just by the Cabinet.

The latest amendment also makes clear that any type of agreement or treaty that creates a law (such as an inter-regional convention that defines permitted acts in inviader-defender actions, or declaring certain conduct as illegal) will still require approval by the Regional Assembly.

The topic in this thread then is how to specify what are and what are not the type of military agreements that can be approved by the Cabinet. I'd like to hear from those members of the RA and the Cabinet who have examples if they would share those examples with us, and why those examples should or should not be included as part of the class of military agreements that can be approved only by a majority vote of the Cabinet.
 
... A military agreement is any agreement that would involve deploying our military or the deployment of other's... it's kind of straight-forward, IMO...
 
Any level of official discourse between our region and others reflects apon our prestiege as a region. As such I feel that if we are going to extend "virtual" credit to the organization it would be in the interest of the Regional Assembly to recieve a notice and concent (Let the citizens know that a external org wants to do _____ ) so that the RA members can investigate the organization themselves and (or) if there is previous history between the organization and the RA member they may bring light of it to the government.


As to which level would require RA approval, I think that Alliances (Military, Diplomatic) and Full Embassy instalations (Highest level of diplomatic relations) would need to be signed off by the RA.

But that's just my :2c:
 
Which brings up an interesting question - should all alliances and military operations become public knowledge? Think about it.
 
Romanoffia:
Which brings up an interesting question - should all alliances and military operations become public knowledge? Think about it.
Click to expand...
I'd say so. Our government was intended to be as transparent as possible. It would kind of defeat that purpose if we joined in a covert alliance.

Not to mention it could make some sticky situations later when the Cabinet that joined into it got exposes.
 
My concerns are these:

First, whether the region can fairly allow a small group of ministers to determine any and all military committments without input or oversight of those decisions (especially if the law allows all military agreements to go to the Cabinet for approval; and

Second, the need to reconcile this authority that would be given the Cabinet with the constitutional duty of the Security Council to approve actions involving regional security (other than ejection/bannings by the delegate).

I can live with a process where any document included for Cabinet-only approval has to be submitted to the Security Council for its endorsement, and if a commitment of TNP forces in an engagement takes place, then that action must be taken to the Security Council. This will at least assure that there is some sort of check-and-balance and this does not create any further increase in the SC's authority that isn't already granted in the Constitution.

I'm still not comfortable with permiitting all military agreements to bypass the regional assembly (because of the lack of check and balances that would create) but since the SC is supposed to act on behalf of the RA when matters are taken to the SC, that would at least use a already created procedure to provide that balance.
 
I thought the agreement was that relatively "minor" agreements could be approved by the Cabinet alone, whereas formal treaties and the like needed to be approved by a referendum?
 
Well, I'm being told by some of those who responded that anything other than a formal alliance should be agreement the Cabinet can approve or withdraw from on their own; and I'm not sure that is what the majority would want either.

I'm also trying to point out that although the prior discussions about the military agreements did not touch the subject, the Security Council has a role to play when these agreements, or deployments under them, may involve regional security concerns.
I want to be sure we preserve the intended prerogatives of the Security Council, which has authority to act on regional security issues when time would not permit RA debate and discussion quickly enough. While the SC has been used for emergency threats based on endotarting, that is not the only basis of how a security matter of regional concern can arise, and it is those other bases for SC participation that I believe is involved in this topic.

Can a current or former cabinet members give us examples of the different categories of military agreement that could arise, and why it is sufficient if the Cabinet only approved the agreement, or why it is better for the RA to do so. Likewise, it might be useful to find examples of when a diplomatic, military or political agreement has an effect of adopting or changing regional law. I really think we need specifics to work off of in this topic, rather than generalities.
 
Military Agreements:

NAP (Non-Agression Pact) - Formal Document that supposedly prevents all parties involved from engaging in hostilities between each other. A gesture of good-will among actors.

MDP (Mutual Defence Pact) - Formal document that states that all signatories shall defend each other should the need arise; many have clauses which allows for some room to wriggle in though should the need arise.

Both of these are used as a good-will gestures usually; they don't really affect us for the whole. I originally proposed that these be a cabinet decision as waiting for a referendum on such things is a lenghty process which can damage diplomatic discussions. These are often used as barganing chips which, at worst, mean that the NPA might have to defend a friendly delegate -- something we do anyway.


We then of course have the two biggies:

Alliance - A formal document that binds two nations together over the long term for a specific goal; used to allow regions to work as a single body in many operations - usually used for a defensive or offensive purpose; for example :- The ADN is an alliance formed for the defence of its member parties; originally formed to protect against the large Atlantic invader/imperialist group.

Entente (Entente Cordiale) or Coalition - Kind of a mini-alliance; formed so that actors can work together for a much shorter goal. A real life example would be the co-alition sent into Iraq; formed specifically for the removal of Saddam Hussain and his troops.

I agree that referendum should be used for these as they bind our region into a serious diplomatic bond that is usually rather hard to escape from.


Hope this clarifies things for you, Grosse.

Remember that TNP usually works on a rather slow process of referendum and debate which can be damaging to Diplomacy; sometimes it is useful for our diplomats and negotiators to be able to work quickly to placate damaged feelings and secure a mutually useful bond between a region that may not be our best friend.

Imagine this scenario:

There is a region that is working against us, either diplomatically or with its military; we cannot assualt them as it is a foundered region, but it would be advantagious for us to have them 'on side'. The cabinet discuss this and decide that it would be in our best interest to send a delegation to negotiate some kind of deal with them; After many hours of discussion and bargaining an agreement is made: Our regions shall sign a Non-agression pact and open embassies with each other in the hopes of bettering our relations.

Now, if the diplomats had to then come back and wait the two weeks for a referendum to take place (assuming that the process goes smoothly), our 'friends' might become a little perturbed, as two weeks is a huge amount of time in NS. Should the RA, whom might not understand the neccessity of the agreement and may still be angry at the actions taken by the other region decide to vote it down in Assembly, our negotiators are literally screwed and our last hopes of finding friendly relations with this region are destroyed.

Now this might sound like a worst case scenario, and it is, but there are situations were our previously lengthy diplomatic process have hurt feelings with regions who are friends with us. I shan't name any names as that would be rude, but suffice to say that they were very powerful actors in NS international relations.

Since our leaving the ADN, our bond with many regions has started to deteriorate; the words and actions of some of our members may not help this. We have to prepare ourselves to become very active diplomatically should we need to be -- We cannot expect the RA to have or want a full understanding of international relations, the TNP foreign policy or the current mood of every major player in the game (this is why we have an MoEA and the Diplomatic Corps), so how can we expect them to make an informed decision on such things as military agreements? All it would take is one angry bloc to destroy hours of negotiations.
 
Digitalis:
We cannot expect the RA to have or want a full understanding of international relations, the TNP foreign policy or the current mood of every major player in the game (this is why we have an MoEA and the Diplomatic Corps), so how can we expect them to make an informed decision on such things as military agreements? All it would take is one angry bloc to destroy hours of negotiations.
Click to expand...
Although I agree that certain treaties that are more minor such as the NAP can be approved by the Cabinet only (I did vote for the original Embassy Documents legislation), I'd like to take this opportunity to re-state that the RA does have a role to play in more major treaties such as the alliances and ententes.

It is true that the majority of the RA does not have their ear to the ground so much that we can be expected to adequately decide on NAP's or MDP's, but I would like to say that many times for referendums for the "bigger" treaties that the RA has still been left in the dark. It is up to the diplomats and the MoEA to inform us just what the stakes are in a given treaty proposal -- not the other way around. The RA elects the MoEA, and therefore they are responsible to the average voter in this region. Whether intentional or unintentional, all too often it seems that the MoEA does not bother to inform RA members about the nature of negotiations. Perhaps such angry blocs as Digitalis describes could be avoided if there was a more active explanation to the people of what is really going on in these diplomatic negotiations. If the RA doesn't get a satisfactory briefing, then I believe we have the right to be angry.
 
Because all of the language of Article II Section 4 is the basis of this discussion, and not just Clause B of that section, I think it's important to take a look at how the section reads now that the most recent amendment has taken effect.

I've bolded those parts that relate to military agreements.

Section 4. Political, Diplomatic and Military Relationships With Other Regions.

A - The North Pacific may establish and maintain appropriate political, diplomatic, or military relationships with other regions in NationStates, in accordance with provisions enacted as part of the North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Political, diplomatic, or military relationships shall only be established by agreement or treaty. Either the Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister has the power to create, change or remove basic military or diplomatic treaties, as defined by law. The creation, change or removal of a Mutual Defence Treaty, or any other Military treaty short of an Alliance or Entente must have the support of a majority of the Cabinet. Proposals for the creation, change or removal of any documents dealing with alliances or ententes (as in a coalition) or other types of interregional agreements, conventions, or treaties that affect regional law must be submitted to the Speaker for approval of such proposed action by a majority of the Regional Assembly in a referendum with a quorum participating. The voting period for the referendum shall be for five consecutive days. Should the action be approved, action to implement the proposal shall be taken by the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs, or the Cabinet of the Regional Government, as appropriate in the circumstances.
C - Provisions for the establishment of a commonwealth relationship, a protectorate relationship, a colony relationship or other political relationships with other regions by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. A treaty or agreement that provides for establishment of a commonwealth relationship shall expressly provide for the rights of nations of the other region to acquire full and equal citizenship and Regional Assembly Membership in The North Pacific under the provisions of this Constitution.
D - Provisions for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions may provide for approval of deployments by the Security Council in appropriate circumstances as provided by law.
E - Provisions for the establishment of embassies, consulates, and interest sections by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions of law may provide for establishment of consulates or interest sections on request of another region or multi-regional organization, but no embassy may be established except by a formal treaty or agreement.
F. Negotiators can reject any proposal deemed unsuitable, before it is presented for vote (should that be required.)
Click to expand...

Now, Section 3 of TNP Law 9 (as amended by NP Law 12 on Embassy Documents, provides:

Section 3. Military Relations

A - Any Military Alliance/Treaty/Agreement documents that provide for a military relationship must first be approved by the Minister of Defense, who then informs the Prime Minister of his or her acceptance or rejection of the document. Such documents may provide for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations.
B - Should the treaty or agreement document be rejected, due to security reasons, the MoD must inform the Security Council of his or her action. The Security Council may review the matter.
C - Should the document be accepted by the MoD, with or without a review by the Security Council, the Prime Minister shall submit the document to the Speaker for submission to the registered voters for ratification or rejection.
D - Documents concerning military relations must be posted in the embassy of the appropriate region or organization within the official Regional off site forum once it is ratified by the Regional Assembly.
E - When a treaty or other agreement does not authorize specific military deployments by its terms, the Security Council may approve deployments in appropriate circumstances not specified in such treaty or other agreement.
F - The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may submit a proposal to the Speaker to withdraw from a treaty or other agreement which in order to be effective, must be approved at a referendum of the registered voters of the region.
Click to expand...

It's important to note that, under current law even with the constitutional amendments already adopted, the constitution still permits the Legal Code to require RA approval of all military treaties. Thus the topic of this thread is not academic, it is necessary to reach a consensus as to how this section of TNP Law 9 is to be modified to withdraw any form of military treaties or agreements from a vote of the RA, and how to maintain the intent of Article IV, Section 9 of the Constitution that the Security Council play a role in these decisions:

Section 9. Security Council.

A - The Regional Assembly shall elect a Security Council. The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council. The Council shall have authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments as are specified in this Constitution and The North Pacific Legal Code. Any action by the Council does not supercede any requirement for approval by a referendum within the Regional Assembly, but serves as approval for action prior to such a referendum.
Click to expand...

As to the role of the Security Council, it is clear that the Constitution contemplates that the members of the Security Council are to be kept informed as to developments that may involve regional security whether diplomatic or military or as to the Delegate's powers in defense of the region, so that the SC members can promptly deal with any matter that is "of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security."

TNP Law 12 partially addressed this by adding the provision in TNP Law 9 requiring that proposed treaties or agreements that the MoD does not accept for security reasons must be reviewed by the Security Council. Likewise, the Constitution provides that military deployments that cannot wait for approval by the Regional Assembly are to be taken to the Security Council.

As I suggested earlier, I believe that there is a role for the Security Council to play in issues concerning military treaties and agreements. If the argument is that it takes too long to have to wait for the Regional Assembly to act, (notwithstanding the fact that there is no minimum period specified in the Constitution for RA debate on questions concerning treaties and agreements and the voting period is shortened to five days) then the Security Council mechanism which requires a quorum to assemble within 24 hours ought to address that concern. In addition, the SC is expressly permitted to approve actions that need authorization before the Regional Assembly could be expected to act.

Because it is an elected special committee of the Regional Assembly, the Security Council can and should play a role in diplomatic and miliary policy. If we can agree on what military agreements can be approved by the Cabinet, and that those agreements will be reviewed by the Security Council for endorsement before a Cabinet vote, then I believe the constitutional requirement of transparency and accountability can be met.

And as far as agreements that require secrecy, I will only point out that the Security Council already has its own private forum, and therefore, the Security Council already has the means to review and act upon any "secret" agreements.
 
So, from my understanding of this the PM/MoEA can create (or negotiate might be a better way of putting it) but the MoD has to then approve it? And that is just military treaties?

It does make sense to involve the MoD and the SC in the ratification of military treaties. MDP's and NAP's should be voted on by Cabinet (after MoD/SC) and anything above that (Alliances, etc) should go to the RA rather than Cabinet.

The main question, then, is how and to what extent is the MoD/SC involved? I'm think more alone the lines of the mechanisms we want to use as currently it states the SC "reviews" it (and only if the MoD rejects the treaty) which is a little vague. I guess it depends on how formal you want it. I think if the SC is given 24 or 48 hours to discuss the treaty (with the MoD and mebbe the MoEA) and then can provide a small, short written statement (either supporting or not the MoD decision) which can then be released publically to the Cabinet and the RA to help them make their decision. Only thing then is what if the MoD rejects the treaty? Does the SC get a vote to over-ride it? Or, again, should they just provide a statement that they disagree with him/her so that they can then rethink it or something?
 
The simplest arrangement is to have the cabinet and MoD make the deals and then just approve the treaties via the RA.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Because it is an elected special committee of the Regional Assembly, the Security Council can and should play a role in diplomatic and miliary policy. If we can agree on what military agreements can be approved by the Cabinet, and that those agreements will be reviewed by the Security Council for endorsement before a Cabinet vote, then I believe the constitutional requirement of transparency and accountability can be met.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, provided that the treaties that are currently deemed necessary for a full referendum (eg, a full-blown alliance) are kept that way.
 
I've been working and re-working a draft on this topic.

The bill would replace the existing section 3 of TNP Law 9 with the following.
In order for the process to make more sense, I'm adapting the existing process of section 3. Instead of "approval" by the Minister of Defense, the MoD would "endorse" the proposal. The Security Council would "aprrove" proposed agreements sent to it. And the Cabinet or the Regional Assembly would "ratify" such agreements.

All documents would be presented to the MoD for his/her endorsement. Documents that would be ratified by the Cabinet, or that include a prior authorization for the use of TNP military forces, or that the MoD fails to endorse within five days would need approval of the Security Council (and this would include some agreements that would be ratified by the Regional Assembly).


Finally three categories of military documents would be approved by the Regional Assembly consistent with the current constitutional language: agreements that create an alliance, entente, or coalition; or that includes any provision that by its terms would have the force of law within The North Pacific; or that has an open-ended term, or a term of a stated period of 90 days or more.

The reason for the third category is very simple: Since the Cabinet term is three months, any Cabinet can easily rescind an agreement approved by a prior Cabinet. The fair way to make such an agreement binding past that 90 days is to have the RA approve it.

So here is the draft.

An bill for an Act revising provisions concerning treaties and agreements concerning military relations.

Section 1.
Section 3 of TNP Law 9 (relating to the Ministry of External Relations), as previously amended by TNP Law 12 on Embassy Documents, is striken and a new Section 3 is enacted, to read as follows:
Section 3. Military Relations
A - Definition As used in this section, “military relationship document” refers to any treaty, agreement, or other diplomatic document that provides for a military relationship, or the avoidance of military conflict, between The North Pacific and any other region or multi-regional organization. Such documents may provide for non-agression pacts, mutual defense arrangements, military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations. Such documents may also include authority for military engagements by The North Pacific forces without further specific authorization by the Cabinet, the Security Council, or the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific.
B - Endorsement by Minister of Defense. Any military relationship document requires the endorsement of the Minister of Defense before it is presented to the Cabinet or to the Regional Assembly for approval. The Minister of Defense shall advise the Prime Minister of his endorsement or his refusal to endorse the document within five days.
C - Approval by Security Council. Whenever such military relationship document:
(1) requires approval by the Cabinet to be ratified, or
(2) such document does not receive the timely endorsement of the Minister of Defense within five days, or
(3) such document includes prior authorization to commit the forces of The North Pacific to any potential military engagement,
then the Security Coucil shall approve such military relationship document prior to ratification by the Cabinet or the Regional Assembly, as appropriate.
D - Ratification by Regional Assembly or Cabinet. Whenever such military relationship document:
(1) creates an alliance, entente, or coalition between the parties to the document; or
(2) includes any provision that by its terms would have the force of law within The North Pacific; or
(3) has an open-ended term, or a term of a stated period of ninety days or more;
then such military relationship document requires ratification by the Regional Assembly in accordance with Article II Section 4 of the Constitution. Any other military relationship document may be ratified by the Cabinet.
E - Posting of Documents. Military relationship documents must be posted in the embassy of the appropriate region or organization within the official Regional off site forum once it is ratified by the Cabinet or the Regional Assembly. Such documents shall also be posted in the legal archives within the official Regional off site forum.
F - Approval of Specific Deployments Whenever a military relationship document does not authorize specific military deployments by its terms, the Security Council may approve military deployments in appropriate circumstances.
G - Amendment The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may propose amendments to an existing military relationship document concerning military relationships.
(1) Where the document originally required Security Council approval, the amendment shall be approved by the Security Council.
(2) Where the document originally required Cabinet ratification, the amendment shall require Cabinet approval, unless the amendment includes a provision that would require Regional Assembly approval. In such instances, the amendment shall require ratification by the Regional Assembly.
(3) Where the document originally required Regional Assembly ratification, approval of the amendment shall require approval by the Regional Assembly.
(4) The Minister of Defense shall have five days to endorse the amendment prior to its submission to the Cabinet, the Security Council, or the Regional Assembly, as appropriate.
G - Withdrawal The Minister of External Affairs or the Prime Minister may submit a proposal to withdraw or terminate a military relationship document.
(1) Where the document required Security Council approval, withdrawal shall require approval by the Security Council.
(2) Where the document required Cabinet ratification, withdrawal shall require approval by the Cabinet.
(3) Where the document required Regional Assembly approval, withdrawal shall require approval by the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top