[SPECIAL CHAMBERS] Regional Officer banning nations during NS events

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Here is my draft:

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gracius Maximus on A Regional Officer banning nations during NS events

Opinion drafted by Crushing Our Enemies, joined by Altmoras and Abbey​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Gracius Maximus.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any citizens who fail to post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.

The Court opines the following:

There are circumstances under which it is legal for a regional officer to eject a nation during a NationStates involving the outbreak of an infectious disease.

First, the delegate must take action to authorize the regional officer to eject nations. This need not be done publicly, so long as it is done explicitly by the delegate. Simply granting border control powers would not be sufficient. The delegate would have to make contact with the regional officer and grant them explicit authority to eject nations during the event.

Second, authorizing a regional officer to eject nations must be reasonable under the circumstances. For example, if the delegate appointed a regional officer who was known to be a security risk, that would be illegal because it is unreasonable.

Third, authorizing a regional officer to eject nations must be in pursuit of the regional plan to handle the emergency. For example, if the delegate authorized a regional officer to eject nations that send cure missiles when the regional plan is to cure infected, that would be illegal because it would not be in pursuit of the regional plan.

These three conditions are drawn from Section 9.2 of the legal code. In other areas of the law, the appointment of regional officers and the ejection or banning of a nation are more strictly regulated. However, because the outbreak of an infectious disease is defined in law as an “actual emergency”, clause 11 of the Bill of Rights is invoked, and the governmental authorities of the region, which include the delegate, are “authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is as consistent as practicable” with the constitution. Clause 11 also requires that the government have the consent of the nations of the region to take such actions. It is the opinion of the court that section 9.2 of the legal code, being adopted as law by the citizenry, constitutes the consent of the nations to assume emergency powers. Thus, as long as the conditions specified in section 9.2 (and explicated above) are adhered to, ejections and bans by the delegate during the outbreak of an infectious disease are legal, and so are actions by the delegate to authorize other nations to perform ejections and bans.

Turning specifically to the ejection of Gracius Maximus, it would seem reasonable and in pursuit of the regional plan for plembobria to permit GBM to eject nations that were sending hordes. Thus, the second and third conditions appear to be met. However, it is not known to the court whether plembobria explicitly took action to authorize her to do so, whether GBM was instructed to do so by another party, or whether she took it upon herself to do so. Thus, it is unknown to the court whether the first condition above was met, and the court is unable to definitively rule on whether Gracius Maximus’ rights were violated when he was ejected by Great Bights Mum.

The court notes, however, that for purposes of losing citizenship, ejections do not constitute leaving the region, since the ejected nation was forcibly removed and took no action to leave. Thus, under the law as it currently stands, ejected citizens would remain citizens until they ceased to exist, returned the region and then departed of their own volition, or failed to post on the forum for over 30 consecutive days.

Please post below to confirm that you wish to join the opinion, or state your objections.

 

[Altmoras]

There are circumstances under which it is legal for a regional officer to eject a nation during a NationStates event involving the outbreak of an infectious disease.

Other than that I think the opinion is in line with what we discussed, and I have no problems with it that come to mind.

 

[Abbey]

I also agree with the opinion as written.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

OK, I'll add in the missing word Altmoras noted and post it immediately.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Logs of off-site chat by the panel handling this review:

Spoiler: Sorry for the lack of formatting

[9:22 AM] Eluvatar: @Altmoras could you please swear in as THO so we can get started? :heart:
[7:26 PM] Altmoras: mkay
November 28, 2016
[6:52 AM] Eluvatar: (This has been done.)
[6:53 AM] Eluvatar: So there are two pretty clear arguments presented to us, as I see it:
[6:54 AM] Eluvatar: Argument A: the law says
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
therefore it is the Delegate and only the delegate who is granted emergency powers. No one else can eject or ban nations pursuant to the Act.
[6:55 AM] Eluvatar: Argument B: act in any reasonable manner must, reasonably speaking, include delegation, therefore the Delegate may delegate authority to act in the emergency
[6:57 AM] Eluvatar: There is also a related question of the definition of "leaving" the region - I would not even seriously consider ruling in any way but that leaving is voluntary, and ejection does not count as "leaving" and so ejected nations do not so lose citizenship at all.
December 1, 2016
[12:56 PM] Eluvatar: pings @Altmoras and @COE
[5:54 PM] Altmoras: I think delegating the ejection of nations that have entered the region during the crisis to others is perfectly reasonable during Z-Day. However where does the line of reasonability end? The law doesn't specify any other reasonable circumstances. "This includes, but is not limited to" isn't exactly helpful.

That particular law seems too subjective to draw anything definitive from imo, is ejecting a nations with top 1% residency reasonable? What about a nation with say 600 endorsements? One person might say that it is reasonably justified to kick anyone who is interfering with the regional plan, another may well disagree, and neither would be right or wrong necesarily.

I'm not sure what to think about this.
[5:55 PM] Altmoras: Is having members of the security council deplete their own influence for a 36 hour event reasonable?
December 2, 2016
[10:09 PM] COE: I think it would be good to examine the boundaries of what is reasonable for the delegate to do during the emergency
[10:10 PM] COE: I think that ejecting nations is reasonable, so long as it is a good faith attempt to follow the regional plan and balance that with regional security and influence concerns.
[10:11 PM] COE: I think that delegation of such a duty is also reasonable and legal, provided that such delegation is done explicitly. For example, if the delegate says to another regional officer, "I authorize you to use your border control powers to eject nations for blah blah blah, using your best judgment"
[10:12 PM] COE: If that doesn't take place, and someone has border control incidentally, the use of that to eject nations during the event would not be legal, I think
[10:13 PM] COE: I think we can allow the delegate some latitude in determining the appropriate and reasonable amount of influence expenditure during the event
[10:13 PM] COE: Not quite sure how to work that into the ruling though
[10:14 PM] Eluvatar: hm
[10:15 PM] COE: Note that, since we currently have no way to tell, from public records, whether such instruction actually took place between plemb and mum, if we adopt my approach to the legality of RO ejections, we should avoid ruling on whether mum's specific actions were legal or not
[10:16 PM] Eluvatar: Unless we should follow the argument that to be effective any such instructions must be public
[10:16 PM] Eluvatar: Which is not entirely unreasonable
[10:17 PM] COE: I think it would be a good idea in the future to make such instructions public, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is legally required
[10:17 PM] COE: The speaker doesn't have to publicly delegate specific duties to their deputies
[10:17 PM] Eluvatar: So the remedy for inappropriate ejections would be the Delegate acting on them?
[10:17 PM] COE: So it's clear that delegation of powers can be done out of public eye
[10:18 PM] COE: Well, let's say there is some question as to whether an RO was authorized to perform an ejection
[10:18 PM] COE: (that they performed)
[10:19 PM] COE: Let's say the instructions were never given
[10:20 PM] COE: The delegate can certainly take action to remedy the situation. But if the delegate has no interest in doing so, members of the public have other ways to seek remedy
[10:20 PM] COE: They could FOIA the government for any official instructions, and force the government to admit that none exist
[10:20 PM] Eluvatar: Ahah
[10:21 PM] COE: They could bring charges of gross misconduct, at which point, if no evidence of such instructions were presented, the defense would probably have a good case.
[10:21 PM] COE: Or, if they were confident enough that the ejections were inappropriate, they could recall
[10:29 PM] COE: That's all I've got for now, I think
December 4, 2016
[12:26 PM] COE: So where are we at on this? Are we in agreement on most of the issues here?
[12:43 PM] Eluvatar: Not sure..
[12:50 PM] Eluvatar: I think we're unanimous that it's reasonable for the Delegate to delegate ejection to other ROs for Z-day
[12:50 PM] Eluvatar: but I'm not sure if we're agreed on how to limit that in our ruling
[12:51 PM] Eluvatar: We also haven't discussed the "leaving" question at all
[12:51 PM] Eluvatar: > There is also a related question of the definition of "leaving" the region - I would not even seriously consider ruling in any way but that leaving is voluntary, and ejection does not count as "leaving" and so ejected nations do not so lose citizenship at all.
December 1, 2016
[12:57 PM] COE: I am completely with you on that
[1:30 PM] Eluvatar: okay
[1:32 PM] Eluvatar: @Altmoras would you be satisfied, do you think, with a ruling that it's reasonable for the Delegate to delegate ejection to other ROs to Z-day but that this does not permit SC members to expend so much influence as would violate the SC requirements and the language of "leaving" means that a nation ejected from TNP would not thereby lose citizenship?
[2:00 PM] COE: (still leaves the question of whether such delegation must be public)
December 5, 2016
[7:43 AM] Altmoras: Aye. I'm with you guys on that as well.
[7:52 AM] Altmoras: As for the delegation being public, perhaps the information being a simple FOIA request away is enough, but I'm not entirely sure.

I do think it would be best to err on the side of transparency. Once more "reasonable" is a bit of a bitch, it is probably good policy to let residents know whose hammer they risk running afoul of, but at the same time it isn't really something to be ruled on by the court.
[7:55 AM] Altmoras: Also: "7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency."

Given this line, I'm not certain as to why we even need to consider the ejection issue. Unless I'm completely spacing this all came about because a nation was ejected during an event that we already have specific legal provisions for regarding ejections and their effect on citizenship/residency.
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: those provisions are for leaving
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: i.e. to allow nations to leave the region for a safer one, and return
[6:09 PM] COE: Oh, I don't think I mentioned earlier that in the past, a delegate has appointed ministers privately, and did not announce them. The oath was the only public indication that they had taken office
[6:09 PM] COE: Granted, that delegate was Blue Wolf II, but it still establishes a semblance of precedent for this sort of hting
[6:09 PM] COE: thing*
December 7, 2016
[4:52 AM] Altmoras: That is helpful.
December 9, 2016
[2:55 PM] Eluvatar: Given that other ruling has been posted, I have removed the other R4R's THOs and added @Altmoras to the THO group. I will try to draft a ruling shortly.
[6:31 PM] COE: Can you post in the thread that Altmoras has been appointed THO, or do you not feel it is necessary?
[6:42 PM] Eluvatar: he oath'd
[6:42 PM] Eluvatar: but perhaps I should
[6:53 PM] COE: I thought it would be good, for clarity, since there were two requests being reviewed at the same time
[6:53 PM] COE: You would have to look in two threads to deduce that Alt had been appointed to this one and not the other
December 12, 2016
[8:05 PM] COE: Is a draft in progress on this?
[9:02 PM] Eluvatar: eep my bad I said I would
December 14, 2016
[7:26 AM] Altmoras: So how are we doing on this?
December 21, 2016
[9:52 PM] Altmoras: ?
January 5, 2017
[6:37 PM] COE: How we're doing is Elu was going to write an opinion and then instead he vacated his office
[6:37 PM] COE: So I'll write the opinion, get your approval, and then appoint another THO before the election ends. They can approve it or not, and then we'll post it
[6:39 PM] COE: Sound like a plan?
[6:40 PM] Altmoras: Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
[6:46 PM] COE: OK, so to recap
[6:47 PM] COE: 1) The delegate can absolutely allow ROs to eject nations during emergencies, as long as it is done explicitly, but not necessarily publicly
[6:49 PM] COE: 2) There are limits to what is "reasonable" under that clause, but we aren't ruling on what they are right now, and allowing RO's to eject does not break any limits
[6:49 PM] COE: 3) As always, ejections do not result in loss of citizenship
[6:49 PM] COE: Anything else?
[7:07 PM] COE: I wanna make sure we're on the same page before I start drafting
COE added abbeym395 to the group.Last Thursday at 7:14 PM
[7:14 PM] COE: Also, Abbey is a THO for this now
[7:16 PM] abbeym395: waves
January 6, 2017
[6:14 PM] abbeym395: Any progress, COE?
January 8, 2017
[2:08 PM] COE: Unfortunately not
[2:08 PM] COE: @Altmoras are you on board with the parameters I posted earlier?
[2:09 PM] COE: [6:46 PM] COE: OK, so to recap
[6:47 PM] COE: 1) The delegate can absolutely allow ROs to eject nations during emergencies, as long as it is done explicitly, but not necessarily publicly
[6:49 PM] COE: 2) There are limits to what is "reasonable" under that clause, but we aren't ruling on what they are right now, and allowing RO's to eject does not break any limits
[6:49 PM] COE: 3) As always, ejections do not result in loss of citizenship
[6:49 PM] COE: Anything else?
[2:10 PM] Altmoras: Looks good to me yeah.
[2:17 PM] COE: Alrighty, I've got some stuff on my plate today, but I'll see if I can get a draft out before Abbey has to go to bed
[2:17 PM] COE: So maybe 4 or 5 hours from now
[7:48 PM] COE: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9032780/
the home of The North Pacific region of the online game Nationstates
[7:48 PM] COE: @abbeym395 @Altmoras Please read the post above and reply
January 9, 2017
[12:59 AM] Altmoras: Replied
[12:59 AM] Altmoras: Replied
[1:00 AM] Altmoras: In the last case we discussed over Discord Elu logged it and posted the logs on the forums for the sake of continuity. I don't know if that's been done already in a part of the board I can't see or do we still need to do it?
[6:16 AM] abbeym395: Posted.
[11:50 AM] COE: Altmoras, I'm gonna do it