[Passed] Peace Terms Acceptance Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
IkeaRike

IkeaRike

Registered
Article 3 Clause 3 of the Constitution states that all treaties need a 2/3 recognition. However, the Legal Code of TNP also allows war to end with terms that aren't specifically treaties. I believe that the same standard should be defined for any terms, formal or otherwise, that would end a war. In addition, there is a defined voting requirement for declaring a war, but not one for ending one.

Therefore, I propose the following:

Peace Terms Acceptance Amendment:
Section 6.4, Clause 18 of the Legal Code shall be amended to the following:
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
18. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws, or other surrender terms or similar are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Please note this is my first venture into the RA, and if you think this is redundant, unnecessary, or I've done something incorrectly, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
"or similar" basically renders the entire thing redundant. It's too vague and could mean anything that is used now instead of what you want to happen via this amendment.
 
This would also make it tougher to end a war. If how I'm thinking is correct, accepting terms of surrender could be done with a 50%+1 non-legislative motion. Ending wars more easily I think would be the better option. No sense in making it difficult.
 
Sil Dorsett:
This would also make it tougher to end a war. If how I'm thinking is correct, accepting terms of surrender could be done with a 50%+1 non-legislative motion. Ending wars more easily I think would be the better option. No sense in making it difficult.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes much more sense in hindsight. I just thought it would be reasonable for the government to voice their support (or concern, I wouldn't know). I've made that change.

Syrixia:
"or similar" basically renders the entire thing redundant. It's too vague and could mean anything that is used now instead of what you want to happen via this amendment.
Click to expand...
I'd agree. I wasn't sure exactly what to do with that phrasing but I have kept it in for the time being. If you think it would be better removing it or clarifying in some other way, I'd be happy to hear it!
 
I rather like this, actually, though I think it may be worth removing the word "non-legislative" from the bill. Any vote that doesn't amend our laws is non-legislative, so the vote in this scenario is already defined as non-legislative.
 
I think this bill could be useful. Has my support.
Syrixia:
"or similar" basically renders the entire thing redundant. It's too vague and could mean anything that is used now instead of what you want to happen via this amendment.
Click to expand...
Under current TNP law, the term “or similar” is already used, not that Ikea is proposing to add it. Though I’d agree that this is a pretty vague term. Perhaps we could amend this amendment to the following:
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
18. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similaror other mutual ceasefire agreements, are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly
Click to expand...
 
I'm down with that but I think that would require its own thread, since it's kind of a tangent from this proposal. @Dinoium
 
Dinoium:
I think this bill could be useful. Has my support.

Under current TNP law, the term “or similar” is already used, not that Ikea is proposing to add it. Though I’d agree that this is a pretty vague term. Perhaps we could amend this amendment to the following:
Click to expand...
Syrixia:
I'm down with that but I think that would require its own thread, since it's kind of a tangent from this proposal. @Dinoium
Click to expand...
I agree that it seems vague, but I don't think we'd necessarily need to open a second thread. I think it all still pertains to the purpose of more formally defining the conditions of peace. If you disagree though, I'd be willing to further discuss the matter.
 
Good proposal. This is an important clarification.

(Welcome to the RA!)
 
Last edited:
My deepest apologies for being gone for so long. Now that I'm getting back into the rhythm of things a bit more, I'd like to try and pick this back up.
 
Welcome back Ikea!

I think this looks good. I suggest motioning for a vote now since debate has been dead for over a month now.
 
Dinoium:
Welcome back Ikea!

I think this looks good. I suggest motioning for a vote now since debate has been dead for over a month now.
Click to expand...
That seems like a good idea. If you wouldn't mind, I'm going to spend the next few minutes reading about how to motion for a vote.
 
IkeaRike:
That seems like a good idea. If you wouldn't mind, I'm going to spend the next few minutes reading about how to motion for a vote.
Click to expand...
Just state that you wish to move for a vote and wait for someone to second. If you do motion, I’d like to second.
 
Dinoium:
I would like to formally second this motion to move to a vote.
Click to expand...
Thank you! If it would be possible, I'd also like to ask that the "Formal Debate" be shortened to at most two days. (If I requested this incorrectly let me know)
 
Last edited:
The motion and second for a vote are recognized and this bill is now in a formal debate period for 2 days. A vote will be scheduled to begin following the conclusion of the formal debate period.
 
I am concerned that, insofar as the Bill purports to permit treaties to be effective without a two-thirds majority, it would appear not to be constitutional.

Peace treaties are still treaties and it would seem to me that they can't be "recognised" if that would have the effect of concluding hostilities. This is because the Constitution requires that "No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly."

As to conclusion of a war on some other basis, I would think a simple majority is probably permissible and I do support that element of the proposal. Ending a war shouldn't, in general at least, be as difficult as starting one and there could well be circumstances where ending by treaty is not appropriate.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I am concerned that, insofar as the Bill purports to permit treaties to be effective without a two-thirds majority, it would appear not to be constitutional.

Peace treaties are still treaties and it would seem to me that they can't be "recognised" if that would have the effect of concluding hostilities. This is because the Constitution requires that "No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly."

As to conclusion of a war on some other basis, I would think a simple majority is probably permissible and I do support that element of the proposal. Ending a war shouldn't, in general at least, be as difficult as starting one and there could well be circumstances where ending by treaty is not appropriate.
Click to expand...
You make a rather valid point, as this is an important distinction to make. I have amended the proposal to reflect this (quoted below, but with the changed parts color coded to show what terms need what conditions). Now, although official treaties must be approved per the constitution's guidelines, but other types can still be simple majority.
Peace Terms Acceptance Amendment:
Section 6.4, Clause 18 of the Legal Code shall be amended to the following:
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
18. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws, or other surrender terms or similar are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am not entirely sure on the wording, I would think that for "is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws" simply saying "is ratified" would do, given ratification is set out in the Constitution, but I don't think it is a point that raises any significant difficulty with the Bill.

On another matter, I am aware that this is a difficulty that arises with the present wording of the clause and that this Bill is directed at the majority threshold question and not this particular difficulty, but I do wonder whether the terms of the Bill actually leave open scope for an end of a war without any terms or treaty, in that "or similar" would logically mean something similar to a peace treaty or surrender terms, and whether that is something that requires to be considered (whether by in this Bill or another).

If the proposer wants to take up the above point, perhaps replacing "or similar" with "or some other end to the state of war" (it might also mean that the "are" should be replaced with an "is" (?)) would an be appropriate form of words.
 
The formal debate period of 2 days has ended, and a vote will be scheduled to begin in 2 days. Please note that during this period the bill may not be amended further.
(To the author, @IkeaRike, if you intend to make further changes to your bill, you will have to withdraw the motion to vote and re-motion when you are ready.)
 
Gorundu:
The formal debate period of 2 days has ended, and a vote will be scheduled to begin in 2 days. Please note that during this period the bill may not be amended further.
(To the author, @IkeaRike, if you intend to make further changes to your bill, you will have to withdraw the motion to vote and re-motion when you are ready.)
Click to expand...
Thank you Mr. Speaker
Zyvetskistaahn:
I am not entirely sure on the wording, I would think that for "is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws" simply saying "is ratified" would do, given ratification is set out in the Constitution, but I don't think it is a point that raises any significant difficulty with the Bill.

On another matter, I am aware that this is a difficulty that arises with the present wording of the clause and that this Bill is directed at the majority threshold question and not this particular difficulty, but I do wonder whether the terms of the Bill actually leave open scope for an end of a war without any terms or treaty, in that "or similar" would logically mean something similar to a peace treaty or surrender terms, and whether that is something that requires to be considered (whether by in this Bill or another).

If the proposer wants to take up the above point, perhaps replacing "or similar" with "or some other end to the state of war" (it might also mean that the "are" should be replaced with an "is" (?)) would an be appropriate form of words.
Click to expand...
I personally believe that the "or similar", while not entirely necessary, does not present enough of a potential loophole to warrant concern. A war could theoretically be ended without surrender terms, but may not need a complete and formal treaty for conclusion. I do believe that at this current point in the process, it might be best to carry forward. Nevertheless, if it is the consensus of other citizens here, I will entertain the possibility of altering this point.
 
Last edited:
In the circumstances, I should think simply proceeding with the proposal as written is the better course. The issue I raised isn't really the same issue as the proposal is directed at and should probably have more discussion if it is to be the subject of further legislation, I don't think there is need to delay this proposal for that.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
In the circumstances, I should think simply proceeding with the proposal as written is the better course. The issue I raised isn't really the same issue as the proposal is directed at and should probably have more discussion if it is to be the subject of further legislation, I don't think there is need to delay this proposal for that.
Click to expand...
I would agree, and we can always look into your concerns in the future. Thank you for the discussion though!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top