ARCHIVED: Amendment

Syrixia

Syrixia

The one, the true, the great.
-
TNP Nation
Syrixia
Discord
TrialByDance#0419
-FROM THE DESK OF THE PRIME MINISTER-
​


syrixia.png

We've recently created a new yet controversial amendment to our Constitution. Tell us what you think!

(ALSO: Following the creation of this amendment, we have added the words "Most Serene" to our national pre title. However, we urge our neighbors not to worry or groan- it's just a title change and our government, laws, EVERYTHING; shall remain 100% THE SAME.)

Syrixian Constitution- Amendment XIX:
PREAMBLE: Parliament SHALL NOT: Under any circumstances, authorize MILITARY intervention in the conflicts of another nation without requesting permission to enter the nation's territory, and/or exclaves/enclaves wherever the conflict is occurring.

CLAUSE 1: If the nation Syrixia is requesting permission from has already asked us to help, we shall enter without a formal requesting session.

CLAUSE 2: If Parliament authorizes such a movement without permission from the nation in conflict, the military and/or the people have the right to sue the Parliament and call a court case against them, in which a fair trial by jury shall be held.

CLAUSE 3: In such a TRIAL, Parliament shall be REPRESENTED by the Prime Minister. Both the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT shall have lawyers, who are trained and capable of handling such a CONTROVERSIAL case that the case probably shall be.

CLAUSE 4: If the movement is confirmed to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL during the trial, the Minister(s) who suggested it shall be interrogated and put on probation or possibly have their Ministership terminated if necessary.

CLAUSE 5: If the movement is deemed ACCEPTABLE, then the case shall be dropped, but only after approval by a 2/3 majority vote in Parliament and/or the Chairman of the Democratic Union.

CLAUSE 6: This amendment ONLY applies to nations who are having a conflict with another nation or a rebellion. If a nation is having a conflict with SYRIXIA, this amendment ENSURES peace talks will begin. If these talks are refused or peace overall is refused, THEN and ONLY THEN shall Syrixia go to WAR, providing this is approved via a 2/3 majority vote in Parliament.

CLAUSE 7: This amendment may be amended into itself if Parliament votes to. In that session, the new AMENDMENT for this AMENDMENT shall be unveiled.
Click to expand...
 
If I were a citizen of Syrixia, I would vehemently oppose this amendment, at least in its current form. What of war? That is a conflict of another nation. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to be invaded, however. This is potentially crippling to your nation, as how can one successfully engage in warfare if they are not allowed to enter the territory of another state?
 
Alta Italia:
If I were a citizen of Syrixia, I would vehemently oppose this amendment, at least in its current form. What of war? That is a conflict of another nation. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to be invaded, however. This is potentially crippling to your nation, as how can one successfully engage in warfare if they are not allowed to enter the territory of another state?
Click to expand...
Fight the war in his own territory.
 
This amendment says nothing about disallowing Syrixia to enter other states completely.

Basically the amendment is saying we can't enter someone else's territory to help in war UNLESS WE HAVE PERMISSION from the person whose territory we are entering.

The way I see it, it's respectful and ethical.

Plus, it guarantees that this respect and this upholdment of ethics will stay in place via a series of security measures, reason being we really don't want to have another "uninvited intervention" like we made in Cronaal, since that stirred up a LOT of controversy and practically almost ruined our international image.
 
Syrixia:
We really don't want to have another "uninvited intervention" like we made in Cronaal, since that stirred up a LOT of controversy and practically almost ruined our international image.
Click to expand...
Take out the 'practically almost' and I'm with you.
 
The Spokesman of Eumenor:
Syrixia:
We really don't want to have another "uninvited intervention" like we made in Cronaal, since that stirred up a LOT of controversy and practically almost ruined our international image.
Click to expand...
Take out the 'practically almost' and I'm with you.
Click to expand...
9/11
 
Syrixia:
This amendment says nothing about disallowing Syrixia to enter other states completely.

Basically the amendment is saying we can't enter someone else's territory to help in war UNLESS WE HAVE PERMISSION from the person whose territory we are entering.
Click to expand...

Let's say Alta Italia declares war on Syrixia. Do you think Alta Italia would ask Syrixia to invade Alta Italia? Furthermore, unless this request does occur, it makes it that much easier to declare or wage war on Syrixia, as Alta Italia does not have to worry about counterattacks or invasions of Alta Italia. It will lose troops and money, but no territory, nor will any fighting take place on that territory, ensuring that it is not damaged. Conducting a war exclusively on one's land isn't a very good way to do it, especially if it is unconstitutional to wage any kind of warfare - no matter how small - on the hostile state, as this amendment provides. Furthermore, I have another concern about this document. My interpretation of the Preamble and Clause 1 is that it will cripple your armed forces' ability to wage war or defend its people unless it is rewritten to explicitly exclude times of warfare. However, my interpretation of Clauses 2-5 - and especially 4-5 - are also grave. You see, if there is a trial on this matter, there may be two rulings: unconstitutional or acceptable. However, the Constitution prohibits the acceptable verdict. In essence, there is only one constitutionally acceptable verdict: unconstitutionality. You are presumed guilty, and the Constitution prohibits you from being declared innocent. Let's establish another hypothetical scenario. In it, your Ambassador to Alta Italia walks into a room to find himself in the middle of a heated argument between the Doge and a member of the legislature of Alta Italia over, say, which . His opinion is requested on the matter, and granted. Alta Italia could argue that this was an officially appointed state official and representative of the State, Parliament, Prime Minister, and People of Syrixia. His capacities have been granted and authorized by the Parliament of Syrixia to represent the State. Thus, all his actions are authorized by the Parliament of Syrixia. However, he has intervened in a conflict of Alta Italia, a foreign nation. Alta Italia could thus sue Syrixia over this, arguing on the basis of this Amendment that this act is unconstitutional. Now, is it? I'm sure that you did not intend it to be, and I don't believe it is, though Alta Italia would have full capacity to sue as I do believe it has a good argument. Let's say that the judge does rule that this is entirely silly and that it is perfectly acceptable. In that case, Syrixia would automatically be under a state of martial law. If I were a member of Parliament, I would call for this to be immediately repealed, and instead replaced by an amendment that addresses these issues.
 
All good points. Editing the amendment, check back in a few minutes.

EDIT: Amendment edited. Thoughts?
 
Clause 6 is OK. If you had a very hawkish government, however, it might not work out as you intended. Yet another hypothetical scenario goes as follows:
Syrixia: "We wish to inform you that our two nations are at the brink of war; let us begin peace talks to avert a crisis."
Alta Italia: "Of course. What are your terms?"
Syrixia: "You must surrender to and agree to be annexed by our nation immediately."
Alta Italia: "Uh, no, thanks."
Syrixia: "The following is a declaration of war."
Your government did initiate peace talks. My government did reject the peace. Then again, I'm not sure how anyone could prevent that from happening, aside from voting for people who wouldn't do that.
Clause 5 I still take issue with, however. "If the movement is deemed ACCEPTABLE, then this is entirely against this document. In this case, DEPENDING on the act taken by Parliament, the verdict will be decided accordingly by the presiding Judge or Justice." Here's my take on this: If the movement is deemed acceptable, the verdict is "acceptable." As such, the second sentence should be redundant; that judge already ruled that the action was acceptable, and thus it follows that their verdict shall be "acceptable." However, that verdict itself is declared unacceptable - that is, "entirely against this document" - making it again a system where you could basically be guilty of being innocent.
 
Oh. Editing again lol. Also, we don't have a hawkish government, and just demanding an annexation would get us kicked out of the DU and our image ruined. Why would we ever do that?
 
(OOC: He was not thread jacking, he was avising you on how your amendment should be written to avoid crippling you or anybody else's nation.)
 
(OOC: No, the "oh it's midnight, happy new year part." Kind but off topic.)

(OOC: Pls no more controversy...)
 
Syrixia:
(OOC: No, the "oh it's midnight, happy new year part." Kind but off topic.)

(OOC: Pls no more controversy...)
Click to expand...
(OOC: Controversy, controversy, controversy!)
 
Syrixia:
How do you handle it? I'm curious :0
Click to expand...
Anytime the Premier or Vice-Premier are out of the country attending an event (be it diplomatic, a ball, etc.) the Minister of Defense is on call / standby who in turn oversees the Kaltian Defense Forces and Kaltian Intelligence Community. If something happens (say an attack), the appropriate agency (ex. Sefydliad) is called up and put on standby to monitor the situation... they will get directly involved once permission has been granted from the nation the situation is happening in. This is also how I deal with my nation responding to an attack or crisis in a foreign country if none of the leaders are abroad.

Note: If any Estate (government) members are traveling to a foreign nation, they are accompanied by a contingent (roughly five to ten) of Guardians who act as bodyguards.
 
Also keep in mind that the Minister of Defense (through the actions of the Premier and Vice-Premier) is at his / her own discretion to call up the requisite agency. If a situation calls for the military, either one of the three branches or a contingent of all three will be put on standby. However, if it requires intelligence oversight either Celeste, Garda or Sefydliad will be put on standby. With regards to the Intelligence Community, the agency called upon (be it one or of them or all three) depends entirely on the situation. By having it set up this way it allows me a great deal of flexibility in role play scenarios in how I want to portray the Kaltian nation.

Note: If you want to read more about the Kaltian Intelligence Community, head here for a rough draft of how I set it up: Kaltian Intelligence. You'll see at the very bottom I mention Oiche na Ruin who will play a key role in an upcoming role play scenario involving one of the new islands I had you add on the map.
 
That totally needs its own RP. Like a secret super awesome multinational covert operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top