Peace Terms Acceptance Amendment

Discussion in 'Regional Assembly' started by IkeaRike, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. IkeaRike

    IkeaRike Citizen -

    Messages:
    18
    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:

    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: Aug 27, 2019
  2. Syrixia

    Syrixia The one, the true, the great. - - -

    Messages:
    12,408
    TNP Nation:
    Syrixia
    Discord:
    Syrixia#9338
    "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.
     
  3. Sil Dorsett

    Sil Dorsett 2021 - - -

    Messages:
    1,943
    TNP Nation:
    Sil Dorsett
    Discord:
    Sil Dorsett#5888
    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.
     
  4. IkeaRike

    IkeaRike Citizen -

    Messages:
    18
    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.

    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!
     
  5. mcmasterdonia

    mcmasterdonia TNPer - - - - -

    Messages:
    20,072
    Not bad for a first shot at a proposal!
     
  6. Darcania

    Darcania kul Seredrau Deputy Speaker - - -

    Messages:
    3,863
    TNP Nation:
    Darcania
    Discord:
    Zephyrkul#1089
    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.
     
  7. IkeaRike

    IkeaRike Citizen -

    Messages:
    18
    Thank you!

    It has been done.
     
  8. Dinoium

    Dinoium Official Legal Nerd of The North Pacific. - - - -

    Messages:
    3,568
    TNP Nation:
    Dinoium
    Discord:
    Dino#1700
    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:
     
  9. Syrixia

    Syrixia The one, the true, the great. - - -

    Messages:
    12,408
    TNP Nation:
    Syrixia
    Discord:
    Syrixia#9338
    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
     
  10. IkeaRike

    IkeaRike Citizen -

    Messages:
    18
    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.
     
  11. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - - -

    Messages:
    1,541
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    Good proposal. This is an important clarification.

    (Welcome to the RA!)
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019