[Private] Great Brigantia's Request

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
Great Brigantia has file an R4R here regarding the NPA doctrine here.

I will post my opinion on the matter later. In the meantime, I am a bit ify on whether GB has standing.

Thoughts?
 
I believe that GB has standing. Since the R4R in question affects the powers of the RA, the RA collectively is affected. As a member of the RA, Great Brigantia is an affected party.

That said, I move on to my opinion--

This case hinges on a simple yes or no question -- Does the policy of the NPA not announce a deployment violate the legal right of the RA (as specified in section 4, clause c of the NPA doctrine) to override a deployment? I believe the answer is yes.

Here is the full text of Section 4:
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.
Click to expand...
Here every clause is understood to begin with the phrase "The NPAF must operate so that..." Therefore clause c technically states:

The NPAF must operate so that 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.
Click to expand...

This explicitly states that the NPAF must act in such a manner so that the RA may override its deployments. I believe that includes notifying the Regional Assembly of its intention to deploy.

This matter is being debated in the RA. Flemingovia is proposing an additional clause that will allow the delegate to declare that an NPAF deployment may be conducted in secret. That clause has not been passed or even gone to vote. As it stands, according to the law, the NPAF must inform the RA of all deployments. Most would disagree with the notion that the NPAF should broadcast every mission before conducting it. I would concur. Here the law should be amended, but our duty is to interpret the law in its current form. That is what I am here doing.
 
Breaking this down, likely, because I'm dead on my feet as it is.

A) Standing isn't an issue. Any member of the RA could have asked and it would be such. As you stated, plem, this does affect the RA.
B) Again, as you pointed out, the law does state that the NPA must act in such a manner that the RA can either approve/disapprove deployments.


C) Personal Note: The wording in this area of the laws is absurd. I agree that there should be some approval system, but not one that encompasses the entire RA. With deployments and transitions happening within a few second window, it is near impossible to notify the entire RA and have a vote before a deployment. It's like getting in a car accident, and warning the person you are talking to that you are going to be in an accident right as the accident is happening. Or announcing to the whole world that you are going to get in a wreck today and that one guy comes along and makes sure you have the wreck.

D) In essence, this is a straight forward request. Yes, the NPA should put a mission up to vote to abide by the law. Yes, the RA must vote on the deployment before it happens. However, this is completely absurd and serves only as a snake-eating-its-own-tail purpose.
 
The law does not state the the RA must vote on deployments before-hand. It simply states that they may override them.
 
Yea, my wording wasn't the best there, apologies.

However, the effect remains the same. By law, the RA needs to know of a deployment in order to override it.
 
I suppose we have an agreement then, as well as a shared disagreement with the law itself. Before anyone drafts an opinion, I think Chief Justice Severisen should, of course, comment. In such an opinion, I believe that the Court should offer a recommendation to the RA that the law be revised.
 
Our personal disagreement should be kept from the Ruling. While we might agree that the law is atrocious, it can be seen as bias. Play it simply off of the facts. I'll poke Sev to join us.
 
Justice Plemboria, thank you for being the moderating justice on this issue. We have 4 more days for briefs to be submitted, and as such it would be prudent to read any briefs that may come forward before forming a full opinion on the matter.


Some preliminary thoughts on the matter:

The law is poorly written, and should include something to the effect of "Missions lasting longer than ____ days need formal approval from the RA in order to continue." It is not practical, nor required in my reading the law, for the missions to be pre-approved. This would not be a prudent way to run a military, whose pre-planning most often relies on stealth.

That being said, I would think, in the way the wording of the law currently is, an announcement should be made in a public forum, or at the very least the private RA forum for each mission. On the other hand, the region has a specific jump point it uses, very identifiable flags, and never hides its involvement. I am not one hundred percent convinced that a lack of announcement prevents someone from challenging it. The NPA announces all missions, so I could also say that transparency had been respected.

My next concern would be whether or not a mission lasting shorter than the duration of RA votes would also be a violation of the RA's right to object to a mission.

In any event, let's wait for the brief period to expire before drafting an opinion.
 
Thank you Justice Severisen. I meant to mention that the briefs period was not over. I guess we all agree the law is ill-conceived. Since we tentatively agree on the matter, I presume there isn't much more to discuss until the briefs period expires.
 
As a point of order, you never formally accepted the request. You thanked him, but never said "This R4R has been accepted, and the five day period for submitting briefs has begun"

I should have caught That, to be honest.
 
court-seal.png

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
I don't care the wording much either. I had quite an eloquent opinion in my head and lost when when I started typing.
 
Feel free to incorporate any of this:

I can not see a circumstance where the RA should be notified before a deployment, but I would certainly feel that the NPA would be better operating under the principles of transparency and better enable the RA to exercise its ability to overrule a deployment by posting an announcement within a single update of each deployment.

I would also mention again that I firmly feel that the NPA has not been operating in such a way as to prevent the RA from exercising its right. From what I have 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.
 
The wording of the above draft doesn't say the RA must be notified before. They just must be notified of it. Personally I think the RA should be notified immediately after the deployment.
 
I edited my reply.

Also, add the line "Opinion of the court drafted by Justice Plemboria, joined by Chief Justice Severisen and Justice Kialga."
 
Severisen:
Feel free to incorporate any of this:

I can not see a circumstance where the RA should be notified before a deployment, but I would certainly feel that the NPA would be better operating under the principles of transparency and better enable the RA to exercise its ability to overrule a deployment by posting an announcement within a single update of each deployment.

I would also mention again that I firmly feel that the NPA has not been operating in such a way as to prevent the RA from exercising its right. From what I have 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.
Click to expand...
The last section here definitely needs to be added. As for notification, it might be that at least the Speaker should be required to be notified at minimum, keeping transparency at a reasonable level while allowing the RA to operate under Clause C.

When it comes to the prevention, it begs the question of how reasonable the time table is for RA to actually be able to vote on a deployment. While flying appropriate flags and using a repeated jump point (I've never seen one, but I don't pay attention to military operations) might allow for anyone to notice, one would have to be paying attention at an update to notice. And should a deployment in progress worry a citizen enough that they feel it shouldn't happen, is there a reasonable way said citizen can act under Clause C if the deployment is in progress?

Edit: Just fully read the second half of the second paragraph. Definitely the best course of action to include. Notifying through the Private Halls. However, will the notification need to be posted with 12 hours before or after the operation?
 
Alright, sorry for being late. Go over the the ruling and decide if anything else needs to be added. We should attempt to get this out by today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top