Request for Review: NPAF Non-Disclosure to the Regional Assembly

[Cormac]

I hereby request that the Court review the following government policy:

Announcements of operations are always made after they are completed (sometimes we make announcements during operaions aswell), we have nothing to hide.

I believe that the above policy has violated the following portion of the Legal Code:

c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPAF deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.

I believe that it has violated the Legal Code in the following way: By depriving the Regional Assembly of knowledge that there is a NPAF deployment ongoing, the Delegate's Government is in effect depriving the Regional Assembly of the power to override NPAF deployments. I would ask the Court to please note that to override a deployment is not the same thing as disapproving a deployment, and when the Regional Assembly is only notified of a deployment after it has concluded, it is only possible for the Regional Assembly to disapprove such a deployment but not to override it.

This government policy has specifically violated my right to: "be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region."
It has violated my right in the following way: The power of the Regional Assembly to override an NPAF deployment -- which is a power that can be initiated by any citizen, myself included -- is a power to protect against abuse of military powers by the Delegate's Government. My right and the right of every citizen of The North Pacific to be protected against the abuse of such powers has therefore been violated.

This government policy has specifically violated my guarantee to: "the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency."
It has violated my guarantee in the following way: Depriving the Regional Assembly of information that is necessary for it to exercise its oversight power over the NPAF deprives every citizen, myself included, of their guarantee to government organized on principles of democracy, in that the Regional Assembly is obstructed from exercising its democratically granted and democratically executed power of oversight; accountability, in that the Regional Assembly cannot hold the Delegate's Government accountable for actions of which it is unaware; and transparency, in that depriving the Regional Assembly of information related to the military decisions and actions of the Delegate's Government is quite clearly not transparent behavior.

 

[plembobria]

Thank you for your R4R, Great Brigantia.

 

[Eluvatar]

Will there be an opportunity to submit briefs?

 

[plembobria]

Briefs may be submitted.

 

[plembobria]

The period for submitting briefs is over.

 

[SillyString]

How can the period for submitting briefs be over when the R4R was never accepted?

 

[plembobria]

How can the period for submitting briefs be over when the R4R was never accepted?

The R4R was accepted. I just failed to say so.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

How can the period for submitting briefs be over when the R4R was never accepted?

The R4R was accepted. I just failed to say so.

Then you have not followed appropriate court procedure and therefore the period for the submission of briefs should be reopened with an official acceptance of the request for review/

 

[plembobria]

How can the period for submitting briefs be over when the R4R was never accepted?

The R4R was accepted. I just failed to say so.

Then you have not followed appropriate court procedure and therefore the period for the submission of briefs should be reopened with an official acceptance of the request for review/

What I meant was that in the above post i which I said that briefs may be submitted, I intended to say the R4R had been accepted. Nevertheless, I am to blame.

The R4R has been accepted. If anyone who was otherwise confused as to whether or not they were able to submit briefs, they may do so within a two day period beginning now.

 

[plembobria]

The period for submission of briefs is over.

 

[Funkadelia]

According to Court Rules, the briefs submission period must last 5 days.

 

[Eluvatar]

According to Court Rules, the briefs submission period must last 5 days.

2.4 The period for submitting briefs may be altered at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.

 

[Severisen]

As an update, deliberations are ongoing and an opinion is taking shape. Thanks for your patience.

 

[plembobria]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Great Brigantia on May 7, 2015​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Great Brigantia.

Opinion of the court drafted by Justice Plemboria, joined by Chief Justice Severisen and Justice Kialga.​

The Court took into consideration the Relevant portion of the legal code of the North Pacific:

4. The NPAF must operate so that:

• The Delegate can issue a blanket approval for the NPAF to work with a given organisation. The Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate must still authorize individual missions.
• Any NPAF member may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact TNP security for any reason that the Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate determines is reasonable.
• The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPAF deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.

The Court opines the following:

The text of the law here is quite clear that every clause here is understood to begin with the phrase "The NPAF must operate so that..." Therefore, it is the opinion of the Court that, per the text of the law, the NPAF must act in such a manner so that it is actually possible for the Regional Assembly to exercise its right under clause C.

The Court firmly feels that the NPA has not been operating in such a way as to prevent the RA from exercising its right. From what has been seen, the NPA regularly flies the appropriate flags when deployed, generally uses a well known jump point for its missions, and does not hide its involvement in operations. Nothing here is attempting to obfuscate their operations and involvement therein. Were the NPA to have acted in this manner, and a specific instance be pointed to where the involvement in an operation was deliberately hidden from the RA, it would be fair to say that the NPA has violated the law. As such, the court feels it prudent that, going forward, in an effort to facilitate the RA's legal right to overrule a deployment, a representative from the NPA shall make available to the RA, within 12 hours of any deployment, the location and relevant details (what other regions and militaries are involved, why the target was chosen, any other publicly available and non-sensitive details) of any such deployment. The court suggests that this be done either in the NPA forum, or the Private Halls of the RA, but gives the NPA the autonomy to oversee the implementation of this policy.

The court would also note that the way the law is written is ambiguous at best and a revision would be preferable. For instance, were the NPA to deploy for a time period shorter than the RA can legally act on this right, would this be able to be interpreted as the NPA not operating in such a way as to allow the RA to override the deployment? Tag raids come to mind. Detag operations. What legally defines a deployment? Should it include only operations that last longer than __ updates? These issues must be answered, but not by the court in this opinion, and preferably through legislative action in the way of an amendment of the applicable law.

 

[Flemingovia]

A wise and fair ruling. It will be interesting to hear whether the NPAF intends to comply with it.

 

[Cormac]

I thank the Court for its time, despite this ruling actually being in many ways less clear than the law.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I thank the Court for its time, despite this ruling actually being in many ways less clear than the law.

(I believe) the tl;dr version more or less states that the NPA is in fact obligated to have RA oversight, as indicated by the law, and that it is now charged with setting up a clear methodology for allowing that oversight to take place.

 

[SillyString]

I thank the Court for its time, despite this ruling actually being in many ways less clear than the law.

(I believe) the tl;dr version more or less states that the NPA is in fact obligated to have RA oversight, as indicated by the law, and that it is now charged with setting up a clear methodology for allowing that oversight to take place.

Does it, though? The ruling only says that such a thing would be prudent, not that it's required.

It also provides no grace period for classified ops, which makes it highly problematic from a security perspective, but that's merely a complaint and not confusion.