Foreign Diplomat Act

[AlHoma]

Foreign Diplomat Act

1. Each region participating in diplomatic relations with this government is entitled to 1(one) diplomatic representative.
A. Said diplomat must provide a letter of creedance from the government of the foreign region and present it to the Minister of External Affairs for recognicion in their diplomatic residence.
2. The recognized foreign diplomat may request that posts be split from their diplomatic thread for the purposes of keeping the discussion on track.
A. Only said diplomat may make the request to split posts on behalf of the represented foreign government.

This proposal is in response to the recent squable regarding the authority to split posts from a diplomatic thread. Several entities claimed priority in who had the authority. I seek to codify the exact authority delegation in respect to the foreign power.

Respectfully Submitted
AlHoma

 

[Fedele]

This is needed.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

AlHoma, here are some suggestions:

This could easily be drafted as an amendment to add a new section to TNP Law 9, where there are already provisions governing relations between TNP and other regions.
It would make it easier if we can keep all the MoEA Legal Code provisions in the same place.

Now the editor in me wants to offer the following suggestions:

1. Each region participating in that establishes diplomatic relations with this government is entitled to 1(one) diplomatic representative.
A. Said The diplomatic representative must provide a letter of creedance presenting their diplomatic credentials from the government of the foreign region and present it to the Minister of External Affairs for recognicion in their diplomatic residence.
2. The recognized foreign diplomat may request that a forum administrator or moderator spilt off posts be split from their diplomatic thread to keep for the purposes of keeping the discussion on topic track.
A. Only said diplomat may make the request to split posts on behalf of the represented foreign government.

"Creedence" would refer to one's believability and not one's diplomatic credentials. And I think the second part would still need something added that acknowledges the right of forum administrators or moderators to enforce the ToS.

 

[mr_sniffles]

God bless the nitpickers!!

 

[Apollo-Industria]

Especially, gros!

 

[Digitalis]

Without being a bit finicky, this stuff could just be made part of the embassy treaty that other states must sign with us.

3. Each region will place an embassy in the region of the other, in order to further communication between the two nations. The embassy will act as a voice of the allied region within the other, and will respect the laws of foreign soil.  This will be done with due process and by request.

Just modify this section a touch, no?

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

letter of creedance presenting their diplomatic credentials

"Portfolio" would save some ink.

 

[AlHoma]

AlHoma, here are some suggestions:

This could easily be drafted as an amendment to add a new section to TNP Law 9, where there are already provisions governing relations between TNP and other regions.
It would make it easier if we can keep all the MoEA Legal Code provisions in the same place.

I'll allow this to be an ammendment to the MoEA code and will accept the following changes

1. Each region that establishes diplomatic relations with this government is entitled to 1(one) diplomatic representative. The diplomatic representative must provide a letter  presenting their diplomatic credentials from the government of the foreign region and present it to the Minister of External Affairs
2. The recognized foreign diplomat may request that a forum administrator or moderator spilt off posts from their diplomatic thread to keep  the discussion on topic. Only said diplomat may make the request to split posts on behalf of the represented foreign government.

My reasoning for keeping only 1 diplomat is so that there is a single representative who may request the posts be removed on behalf of the region they represent.

 

[Carops]

Seems fair to me...

 

[Digitalis]

Once again, why are we creating a law when a modifaction of the treaty would be easier and more efficient?

 

[AlHoma]

This is not in response to any specific diplomatic relation. This is a "IN GENERAL LAW" something that will be applied to every diplomat equally.

 

[Digitalis]

You're applying something to embassies rather than diplomats...

We also need to decide whether we are allowing the diplomats/embassies to be considering foreign soil. If so, then we have no say in what the hell goes on there [ICly, of course].

I'd also be cautious of restricting the number of representatives allowed we allow in. Sometimes a whole delegation may be neccesary.If we decide that embassies are not sovereign territory -- something I am very against -- then perhaps we should change this law to state that only the recognised ambassador/consul may request a split from an embassy.

This also calls into question the concept of diplomatic immunity, as we are binding foreign diplomats to our legal system. Can we do that?

 

[AlHoma]

...

We also need to decide whether we are allowing the diplomats/embassies to be considering foreign soil. If so, then we have no say in what the hell goes on there [ICly, of course].

They have the right to control what goes on in their thread, however they are granted the area by this government, and as such should held responsible for the sections of general forum decora.

I'd also be cautious of restricting the number of representatives allowed we allow in. Sometimes a whole delegation may be neccesary.If we decide that embassies are not sovereign territory -- something I am very against -- then perhaps we should change this law to state that only the recognised ambassador/consul may request a split from an embassy.

True, but the purpose of this law is to make 1 specific person who is in charge of the diplomatic organization. That diplomat can allow others to talk in their stead, however the diplomat is ultimateley responsible.

This also calls into question the concept of diplomatic immunity, as we are binding foreign diplomats to our legal system. Can we do that?

If the diplomat violates our decora on several occasions (accidents do happen) then we should request of the foreign government to have a new diplomat sent.

 

[Digitalis]

Yes, but we do that anyway.

We've never had to declare a diplomat persona non grata but it certainly is something I was willing to do when I was MoEA and I'm sure that every Minister realises that option is open to them.

I'm still not sure why this law is needed, have I missed something here? Are we trying to formalise good manners in embassies?

All this suggestion really adds is the need for diplomatic credentials, and whilst this is something that I implemented as MoEA (I'm not sure if it's still used), I think we might upset some people if we require others to do the same.


The whole thing seems a touch redundant to me.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I tend to agree with Digitalis on the possible redundancy.

Here, we're saying that only the diplomat can request a thread split. That seems to be common sense.

However, I don't think that even if we enacted something like this, on some level, that it would violate diplomatic immunity. I don't think it's that big of an imposition of our legal code for them to agree to what AH proposed.

 

[AlHoma]

I refer you to the "Pacific Consulate" and how 2 different people have brought "requests" from the government there to have posts split off or merged in. This would be one point of contact for that moderation action

 

[Digitalis]

Yes, but I don't see that one incident as being a great example of why we should introduce a law.

It would be simple to add these requirements to the consul/embassy treaties as a 'gentleman's agreement' between regions; gives us some wriggle room, which is very important in IR.