Military Rules and Code of Conduct

To all residents of The North Pacific,

In my opinion, the Armed forces works the best when it has clear laws, rules and a sensible code of conduct. As the Minister for Defence it is my responsibility to formulate such rules and codes.

I am requesting assistance in doing this, as it is quite a significant task to take on oneself.

These Laws must reflect some important things:

• military rank and structure
• Military Code of Silence: by this i mean, rules that govern not discussing military plans with non-members and enemies
• Penalties for Violations of the Laws
• How the military should respond in an internal crisis

Thats the list of things off the top of my head. If anybody can be of any assistance in codifying some of these rules, i would be most grateful.

Regards,

Minister for Defence

I have began writing some of these laws. I have received little response from members. Should anyone else wish to contribute it would be most welcome.

mcmasterdonia:

I have began writing some of these laws. I have received little response from members. Should anyone else wish to contribute it would be most welcome.

Click to expand...

What do you have so far?

and who would act on these laws will there be a civilian or military court

Scandigrad is drafting the rules on the military code of silence. I'm currently focussing on the rank/structure of the military, i.e. the executive, responsibilities of the minister, how military laws are made, obeying chain of command, military justice etc.

I would appreciate help/ideas on how the military should respond if we have an internal crisis, rogue delegate etc. As historically the delegate would be commander of the army.

In response to FALCONKATS, i was thinking of establishing a military justice system. It is unlikely that this will be needed on a regular basis, but it would be helpful to have. Cases would be heard in the confidential section of the North Pacific Army. One Military Judge, and defendant picks his/her advocate, with the minister for defence responsible for prosecution. I am of course, open to ideas/criticisms/suggestions on this one.

Additional note: Requirements for membership? Taking of the oath obviously. A confidentiality oath is also being developed by Scandigrad for access to confidential documents etc.

Things like:

TNP citizenship on the forums?
Must have a resident TNP nation
Allegiance(s)? How can we best assess this? We have had some members apply for joining the military, whose allegiance has been called into question by others. How can we be sure, our members are fully allied to TNP and are not simply promoting their own agenda.

Rather than a standing court, if we want to have a system of military justice, could we perhaps have the Minister of Defense simply randomly select an active soldier or three? It'd be best if the system was as informal as possible, I think.

To randomly pick the soldier to serve as the judge you mean? I like the idea of keeping it as informal as possible, as HOPEFULLY we will not have to use the military justice system too often. However, should we have to, I wouldn't want the defendant screaming about bias, when the minister chooses the officers.

Which is why I suggested randomly selecting any soldier, not just a promoted one. http://www.random.org/

So truly random. I thought you meant, the Minister randomly chooses AKA at his/her discretion.

That would be rather silly yes

I also believe that if an officer gives an order or if the MOD or the COS gives an order, they should be followed.

Additionally, privates ordering around officers or higher ranking members should not be allowed. I have seen that happen a few times lately.

[me] needs to read things properly

I am not sure if (as a member of RA) I am allowed to post here - if not, do not hesitate to simply throw me out.

I think that military jurisdiction should be given to the permanent court (separate from CoTNP or organised as its '2nd department', solely dedicated to the military cases), consisting of at least three judges - at least one of them being a high-ranked officer of the armed forces in order to provide military expertise (supposedly elected by the military personnel), one appointed by the Delegate (as the supreme commander) and the third one being elected by the RA (members of the RA holding ranks in the army would be excluded from voting - and by the way, what is the general idea of the military personnel' voting rights?).

I like the idea of keeping it as informal as possible, as HOPEFULLY we will not have to use the military justice system too often.However, should we have to, I wouldn't want the defendant screaming about bias, when the minister chooses the officers.

Click to expand...

For me, in order to prevent defendants from screaming, the clear and formal rules of jurisdiction are necessary. In the military there should be no place for lottery-drawing as it disrupts the chain of command.