Formal Discussion - Wartime provisions

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
Originally drafted by Chief Justice Byardkuria --

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signed.
Click to expand...

I would like to bring up the slight formatting issue of whether this is going to be a TNP Law (I think it is -- I don't think its a Constitutional addition).

Edit: Added the three words in italics that Unter suggested.
 
TNP Law would be easier to pass. And I don't think it really has to be in the Constitution.

Thank you for posting this. The main reasoning behind this law is that is it logically impossible for somebody to have dual citizenship in two regions that are at war with each other - for example, this issue currently exists between us and the Lexicon. In order to have citizenship in both, you are effectively committing treason in one region or the other, as you cannot feasibly support both. Allowing such citizenship therefore poses a great security risk to us, as our enemies could apply for the RA, and we would have no grounds from which to turn them away.
 
I sensible law that I could support (and a law it should be, rather than a Constitutional amendment). Of course, it will only be effective against the obvious and open dual citizens (i.e. Cathyy, Fulhead Land). The less honest, more secretive types will still be untouched and others interested in playing on both sides of the fence would be driven underground. Still, I think addressing the actions of the most blatant offenders is worthwhile.
 
Blackshear:
I sensible law that I could support (and a law it should be, rather than a Constitutional amendment). Of course, it will only be effective against the obvious and open dual citizens (i.e. Cathyy, Fulhead Land). The less honest, more secretive types will still be untouched and others interested in playing on both sides of the fence would be driven underground. Still, I think addressing the actions of the most blatant offenders is worthwhile.
Click to expand...
We are working on increasing the security of the application process. I'm confident that we should be able to identify most of the dual citizens. Probably not all, but it should be a good start.
 
This proposal draws a neat line between what is acceptable dualism and what constitutes duplicity during wartime. It definitely has my support.
 
This is nothing more than the corrupt ruling class abusing its power to oppress the helpless proletariat. It has my full support.
 
A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa.
Click to expand...

I still say this contains a loophole whereby in future a hostile power (lets call them "the Dictionary") with a number of citizens sheltering behind dualism here could simply decide to wage war against us without declaring war against us.

In such a situation the fact that they had not made a formal declaration of war would be siezed on to block any attempt to remove fifth-columnist RA members, unless we declared war, which would make US the aggressors.

I would prefer to see a phrase inserted like "declared war, or who by their actions made it apparent that war is being waged by that region against the North Pacific" or something.
 
If we add in Flems two cents I would have no problem supporting this. One suggestion I have is drawing up a "schedule" of what we think acts of war are and their percieved impact on the region. Make it a points system (Don't make the schedule public though, just the categories, otherwise we will have invaders and troublemakers improving their math skills on a daily basis)
 
I also agree with Flem -- functionally it would be a simple matter to go ahead and declare war on any group after it commits agressive acts. However I think it would be better to deny such a group a potential relations boost if we were to declare war.

If we changed the text to "declaration or acts of war" it would give us more leeway down the road.
 
It's all the same. Pick whichever wording sounds the best and let's go with it.

*Fedele flips a three sided coin.

Unter's wording wins.
 
At the moment I see no problems with this as long as this covers the acts constituting war on The North Pacific, as well as formal declarations.

A conspiracy of players to commit war-like actions against TNP would thereby be sufficient cause to invoke this proposal.

As far as whether it requires a constitutional amendment or a law, I don't have enough time at the moment to check, but others might want to check Article I and Article II of the Constitution; as long as there is no explicit prohibition to this as a law, then the law making powers given to the Regional Assembly to enact the Legal Code will be sufficient.
 
Perfect example why not to do this.


A year back or so...I created a puppet and moved it to ireland. My UN nation is in TWP as it has always been other than liberating TNP and a few other LF missions. TWP was/is a charter region for the ADN. The ADN and Ireland wiht alies go to war against each other.

OK... My UN is with ADN region, and we had just gone through a constitutional committee so we had no real army. We didn't fight, but I still maintined my puppet in Ireland and I a in good relations with the people to this day.

It is possible to have a presence in both without violating the laws of either. I did and I know many others did.

Circumstance should never void your membership, ONLY ACTIONS SHOULD.

thank you and this is my :2c:
 
Problem with that is:

If we were to allow foreign nationals into the region, when their other region is at war with us, they could remain as members as long as they did nothing. Nothing, that is, until election time rolls around.

Suddenly there's a new RA member running for every cabinet position, the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and they seem to have an uncanny amount of support. The election happens, and the truth is revealed: Every last one of the new cabinet members is loyal not to TNP, but to our enemy. We can't impeach them because they control the government. We're going to have a hard time removing them, because we helped put their Delegate in power. The enemy will have just committed a completely legal coup d'etat, right under our noses. And the region will be lost.

Reports recieved by the North Pacific Intelligence Agency indicate that a threat such as this may exist. Recent events are lending much credence to it - have you noticed the sudden upswing in Regional Assembly applicants? Have you noticed that the Lexicon is extremely quiet right now, for supposedly being at war with us? Have you noticed that our Delegate is being impeached, by a Lexiconian? If Erastide is constitutionally required to drop her endo-count, it will make it just that much easier for a new Delegate to come into power.

This is the main reason we need this legislation. The Lexicon has undoubtedly found the only hole in our Constitution, and they are no doubt forcing themselves into it as quickly as they possibly can. We must act NOW to close this hole, or else we will fall, and democracy in The North Pacific will once again be lost. We may have all the feeders on our side, but they can't do a darn thing when our very own laws allow the enemy to take us over.
 
The alternative is to freeze elected position altogether until the war is over.
 
I think that we don't necessarily need to put in a provision for 'hostility' so long as we have the understanding that nations caught up in a diplomatic tiff or something similar would be given a benefit of the dobut. The thing that stands out in Freedom and pride's case in point is having good relations and not merely a lack of bad relations.

If an individual is actually a part of the community here, then the community should be able to recognize that in a way that doesn't need to be put into legislation but can come out in the process.
 
I'd like to add a few concerns, if I may interject?

The wording of the bill states that its provisions apply when another region has commited "acts of war" against TNP. My concern is: Who decides what is an act of war and what isn't?

Also, the wording of the bill indicates that it no longer has any effect once "a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signed." The problem with this is that "wars" in NS tend to never really technically end but rather, usually fizzle out to nothingness or a state of irrelevance. What happens when it's apparent that hostilities have ceased but no formal document confirming that fact has been signed? *shrug*

Anyways, that's my :2c: .
 
Monte Ozarka:
I'd like to add a few concerns, if I may interject?

The wording of the bill states that its provisions apply when another region has commited "acts of war" against TNP. My concern is: Who decides what is an act of war and what isn't?

Also, the wording of the bill indicates that it no longer has any effect onc e "a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signed."The problem with this is that "wars" in NS tend to never really technically end but rather, usually fizzle out to nothingness or a state of irrelevance. What happens when it's apparent that hostilities have ceased but no formal document confirming that fact has been signed? *shrug*

Anyways, that's my :2c: .
Click to expand...
Your first point....I'm pretty sure a declaration of war will count as an act of war...also invading...unendorsing campaigns...But as to who decides...that should be mentioned somewhere...

on your second point...change the wording to"a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are recognised."..I think that should cover apperent fizzle-outs and such...

Freedom and pride....someone expressing a concern is not a point against something...and anyhow...voting starts after discussion...
 
Can't argue with something that makes blatant sense given current circumstance.

It could be up to the RA to decide whether or not TNP is at war when a formal declaration hasn't been made, couldn't it?

Aggressive acts and malfeasances by public officials are noticed by anyone with eyes open, and while I need to give the constitution a read through, I do believe that any RA member can 'call you out' for committing unconstitutional acts.. including acts of aggression against the gov't in good standing. We just need to ensure that TNP RA members are the region's eyes and ears, and this system has worked thus far, ive noticed.

In any case, doesn't this seem as if it deserves its own topic?
 
It very well may. The time for changing this is rather past, unfortunately - according to the Constitution, voting on this is supposed to start by 5:15 tommorrow, and it needs to get done very soon.

Daimiaena's suggestion would probably work, although if absolutely neccessary, a court ruling could probably be obtained to legitimize the existence of a war or not.
 
so then if RA member X is in possession of puppet c in region w and we go to war with them, their msut either resign from the RA or move the puppet?
 
Last minute changes?

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by decision by the Security Council. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signedrecognized.
Click to expand...

Red is parts taken out, green is new stuff.

Basically, I wrote in Security Council because it's a smaller group of people that allows for simplified procedures and faster action. If it's too late to make these changes, we can always amend this later.
 
That sounds good. Now let's vote on this bugger!

@ F&P: If I follow you alhpabet correctly, yes. They must resign from one region or the other, or they will get kicked out here.
 
I can support this as well; I also support it moving forward to a formal vote.

I assume this is intended to be a law within the Legal Code, correct?
 
Yes, it is. Voting is supposed to start today - if wizard doesn't show up soon, I don't think there's anything that says the vote can't be started by somebody else.... :unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top