[Passed] Military Modernisation Bill

[mcmasterdonia]

I have decided to modify this proposal. The constitutional amendments can be dealt with separately, by way of another discussion.

4. Chapter 8 of the Legal Code will be repealed in its entirety, Chapters 9 and 10 will be renumbered 8 and 9 respectively, and the following section will be added to Chapter 7:

Section 7.7: The North Pacific Army
41. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavour to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.

42. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force including altering the regions chosen embassy list or password protecting the region. Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies.

43. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will refrain from causing permanent harm to the region, including forcibly remove natives or refounding the region. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies, subject to the approval of the Regional Assembly by a majority vote or pursuant to a declaration of war.

44. Any member of the North Pacific Army may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact regional security for any reason that is deemed appropriate by the Delegate or the executive officer charged with military affairs.

45. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all military operations upon deployment, with the exception of operations which the Delegate specifically classifies. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment.

46. The North Pacific Army must promptly withdraw from any operation that the Regional Assembly cancels by majority vote. Where an operation is cancelled, the North Pacific Army must take reasonable steps to restore or to provide natives with the means to restore any region subject to the operation.

47. Nations wishing to join the North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honour and by my conscience, I will endeavour to be a trustworthy and faithful soldier of the North Pacific Army. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavour to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavour to represent The North Pacific with honour and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

Spoiler: Version 2

1. The following clause will be inserted into Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific after clause 3. The remaining clauses in the article will be renumbered appropriately.

4. The Delegate may declare war on foreign powers by submitting a declaration of war to the Regional Assembly. If it is approved by a three-fifths majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

2. The following article will be inserted into the Constitution of The North Pacific, after Article 6. The subsequent articles will be renumbered appropriately.

Article 7. The Military

1. The North Pacific Army will be the regional military and is charged with protecting the region and its allies and serving its interests through military force, under the leadership of the Delegate.

2. The North Pacific Army will consist of volunteer residents who are approved by the Delegate or a designated executive officer. The Delegate or a designated executive officer may dismiss members from the North Pacific Army freely.

3. The Delegate will administer the internal policies of the North Pacific Army.

4. The North Pacific Army will not be considered a government body, nor will its officers be considered government officials.

3. Section 6.4 of the Legal Code will be repealed in its entirety.

4. Chapter 8 of the Legal Code will be repealed in its entirety, Chapters 9 and 10 will be renumbered 8 and 9 respectively, and the following section will be added to Chapter 7:

Section 7.7: The North Pacific Army

41. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavor to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.

42. When deployed in a foreign region, members of the North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force, including password protecting the region, forcibly removing natives from the region or refounding the region. Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies, subject to the approval of the Regional Assembly by majority vote, or pursuant to a declaration of war.

43. Any member of the North Pacific Army may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact regional security for any reason that is deemed appropriate by the Delegate or the executive officer charged with military affairs.

44. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all military operations upon deployment, with the exception of operations which the Delegate specifically classifies. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment.

45. The North Pacific Army must promptly withdraw from any operation that the Regional Assembly cancels by majority vote.

46. Nations wishing to join the North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to be a trustworthy and faithful soldier of the North Pacific Army. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

5. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

Spoiler: Version 1

1. The following clause will be inserted into Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific after clause 3. The remaining clauses in the article will be renumbered appropriately.

4. The Delegate may declare war on foreign powers by submitting a declaration of war to the Regional Assembly. If it is approved by a three-fifths majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

2. The following article will be inserted into the Constitution of The North Pacific, after Article 6. The subsequent articles will be renumbered appropriately.

Article 7. The Military

1. The North Pacific Army will be the regional military and is charged with protecting the region and serving its interests through military force, under the leadership of the Delegate.

2. The North Pacific Army will consist of volunteer residents who are approved by the Delegate or a designated executive officer. The Delegate or a designated executive officer may dismiss members from the North Pacific Army freely.

3. The Delegate or a designated executive officer will administer the internal policies of the North Pacific Army. These policies are subject to change at the Delegate's discretion.

4. The North Pacific Army will not be considered a government body, nor will its officers be considered government officials.

3. Section 6.4 of the Legal Code will be repealed in its entirety.

4. Chapter 8 of the Legal Code will be repealed in its entirety, Chapters 9 and 10 will be renumbered 8 and 9 respectively, and the following section will be added to Chapter 7:

Section 7.7: The North Pacific Army Management and Operations

41. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavour to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.

42. When deployed in a foreign region, members of the North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force, including (but not limited to forcibly removing natives from the region. Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause may be publicly authorised by the delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific, or pursuant to a declaration of war.

43. Any member of the North Pacific Army may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact regional security for any reason that is deemed appropriate by the Delegate or the executive officer charged with military affairs.

44. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all military operations upon deployment, with the exception of operations which the Delegate specifically classifies. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment.

45. The North Pacific Army must promptly withdraw from any operation that the Regional Assembly cancels by majority vote.

46. Nations wishing to join the North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honour and by my conscience, I will endeavour to be a trustworthy and faithful soldier of the North Pacific Army. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavour to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavour to represent The North Pacific with honour and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

5. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

I am introducing this but full credit where it is due, it was originally drafted by COE.

Here are a few reasons why we should pass this bill.

1) The NPA will be enshrined in the constitution highlighting its status as an important part of our government and regional security apparatus. It is also clarifies the legal status of the NPA and its members. (This will be pursued separately)
2) The NPA will have greater flexibility about the operations that it can undertake. The Delegate will also have clearer responsibilities for the NPA and a greater ability to influence the extent of this flexibility.
3) The NPA doctrine will be corrected from the mess it is right now to something that is consistent with the rest of the legal code. It will also be moved into the executive section of the legal code, instead of maintaining it's own old position.
4) The oath is much clearer and outlines the responsibilities of NPA members in a more comprehensive fashion.
5) Our protections for regions are maintained with one exception - the Delegate may exempt regions from some of these requirements by public authorisation. This is limited to actions that can be easily restored by the NPA if the Regional Assembly did overturn the motion. Other exceptions can only be granted with the approval of the Regional Assembly. This would be particularly relevant to the situation we are in now.

I will be going to bed soon. So have fun discussing it overnight and I will answer questions tomorrow and post further reasoning tomorrow. For the most part, however, I hope the proposal speaks for itself.[/quote]

 

[Darcania]

This needs an omnibus clause, as it amends multiple documents.

No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This needs an omnibus clause, as it amends multiple documents.

Good catch. Added.

 

[St George]

This gives both the delegate and the NPA commanders far too much leeway to take part in destructive practices with legal restraints being waived far too easily. That power should reside with the Regional Assembly, not the military or its commanders.

I would also much prefer this clause from the doctrine by retained:

6. The NPA leadership is empowered with the ability to determine the cosmetic details of military, including ranks and insignia, pending the outcome of a poll of active NPA members.

 

[Bobberino]

For whatever my voice is worth, full support. Though I don't have voting rights.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This gives both the delegate and the NPA commanders far too much leeway to take part in destructive practices with legal restraints being waived far too easily. That power should reside with the Regional Assembly, not the military or its commanders.

I would also much prefer this clause from the doctrine by retained:

6. The NPA leadership is empowered with the ability to determine the cosmetic details of military, including ranks and insignia, pending the outcome of a poll of active NPA members.

No issue regarding the point six being added back in.

Regarding your first point, the restrictions are still there in #42. The key difference is that they can be waived by a public authorisation from the Delegate. The Regional Assembly can still override the operation by a majority vote. Ultimately this would assist us in our current conflict against CCD and their affiliates just as an example. But realistically due to influence, the regional assembly would be able to override any operation before it got destructive, if the RA disagreed with the public authorisation by the delegate.

 

[Darcania]

Exceptions to this clause may be publicly authorised by the delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific, or pursuant to a declaration of war.

Slight issue with the wording here, the way it's worded makes it sound like when exceptions exist, it is optional ("may be") for the Delegate to publicly authorize them. I think "must be" would be better here.

 

[St George]

No issue regarding the point six being added back in.

Aces.

Regarding your first point, the restrictions are still there in #42. The key difference is that they can be waived by a public authorisation from the Delegate. The Regional Assembly can still override the operation by a majority vote.Ultimately this would assist us in our current conflict against CCD and their affiliates just as an example. But realistically due to influence, the regional assembly would be able to override any operation before it got destructive, if the RA disagreed with the public authorisation by the delegate.

A declaration of war would also assist us in our current conflict against CCD. I don't believe the delegate should be able to waive the restrictions in #42 without seeking prior authorisation from the RA. If we're going to get into the business of waging undeclared wars, which it seems we are, then the delegate should have to seek permission to wage such from the RA.

 

[Praetor]

5) Our protections for regions are maintained with one exception - the Delegate may exempt regions from these requirements by public authorisation. This would be particularly relevant to the situation we are in now.

Against. I am not in favour of permitting the Executive to destroy regions without prior approval from the RA.

Especially with how quickly regions can get destroyed relative to the RA organizing itself to stop the region destruction.

 

[Syrixia]

This has my support. I think it's a good idea to clean everything up and streamline the process for a modern world.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

In broad terms I support the proposal, or most of it, in that I think there should be greater scope for offensive actions outside of the ordinary requirements of the NPA Doctrine and there is considerable merit in formalising parts of the NPA structure that are currently somewhat unclear in their status (its rules and oath, for instance). There are a number of elements I would query and, in honesty, I do not think I could support the proposal as drafted.

Starting with new clause 4 in Article 3 of the Constitution, this does not limit itself to transposing the current provisions for war in the Legal Code. I can see why that is, I have made some suggestions for reform during the relatively recent discussions and support the alteration to allow for ends to war without placing conditions on what those ends are beyond the Assembly's approval. The new clause would also remove the current mechanism that allows for states of war to be recognised, rather than declared, and would place initiative with the Delegate. I can see why these changes might be made, but I think they do merit discussion.

In relation to new Article 7 of the Constitution, I think I support inclusion of the NPA within the Constitution as part of the formalisation referred to above, in that it may be necessary to allow for some reforms in relation to the rules. Plainly, however, the it is a substantial addition and should be carefully considered. Throughout the Article, I am not sure I see the need for the inclusion of "or a designated executive officer", given that the Delegate may be assisted in any of their duties by executive officers. In clause 1 of the Article, I wonder if it would make sense to specify "protection of the region and its allies". Clauses 3 and 4 appear to be aimed at two points: formalisation of the rules; and preventing provisions of current Article 7 from operating in relation to the NPA. I certainly support the former of these aims and I can see why one would not want the latter to apply to the NPA, but I wonder if it could be done differently.

I do not think that it really makes sense to say that the NPA is not a government body, given that in many respects it functions very much like one would expect a government body to function. I expect that preventing it being considered one is done to avoid its rules being determined by its membership rather than by the Delegate, but if a specific provision is made as to the rules of the NPA, such as by clause 3, it would seem to me that that would defeat the general provisions of Article 7. I also think that it would makes sense for the language of the provisions of the Bill dealing with the rules to be uniform (that is, to refer to them, throughout, as rules). Clause 3 could be "The Delegate will make and administer the rules of the North Pacific Army." and clause 4 could be "Officers of the North Pacific Army will not be considered government officials." and I think the same effect would be achieved; I don't see that it is necessary to specify involvement of executive officers, as noted above, nor do I see that it is necessary to specify that the Delegate may change the rules (similar provision is not made in relation to the general rulemaking power and there seems to be no suggestion that that means the Court Rules, for instance, are unchangeable).

In relation to new Section 7.7 of the Legal Code, I have not as yet compared it closely with the extant doctrine, so there may be more points I would raise after doing so, but I do share the concern already expressed that clause 42 of the Section gives an overbroad power to the Delegate to disapply the Code. I would be much more comfortable with the provision if it required prior approval. I note what is stated in relation to the likely speed of any destructive operation meaning that the Assembly would be able to prevent its completion, but even so I would be concerned at the notion that partial destruction could occur before the Assembly organised itself. I am also concerned in that the wording would seem to me to permit authorisation not only of particular operations or operations against particular regions, but also could be by reference to criteria (for example, fascist regions). While I think there are clearly some criteria (such as the targeting of fascists regions in general) that are wholly supportable, it does seem to me that it can create a difficulty with the Assembly's exercise of control if coupled with the use of a secret deployment.

I am also somewhat concerned that clause 45 differs from the existing doctrine in removing the requirement on the Speaker to accept motions to override (or, as in the Bill, cancel) operations on an expedited basis.

 

[Gladio]

Full support

 

[Sanjurika]

For those Americans out and about...

*modernization

 

[SillyString]

I'd like to suggest changing the name away from "The North Pacific Army Doctrine" - it's not really a doctrine anymore with the proposed changes, and I think it's more confusing for it to keep that name.

I'm not sure how to best replace it... "Military Management and Operations" or something like that, maybe?

 

[Eluvatar]

I'm against this.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Slight issue with the wording here, the way it's worded makes it sound like when exceptions exist, it is optional ("may be") for the Delegate to publicly authorize them. I think "must be" would be better here.

This has been addressed.

Aces.


A declaration of war would also assist us in our current conflict against CCD. I don't believe the delegate should be able to waive the restrictions in #42 without seeking prior authorisation from the RA. If we're going to get into the business of waging undeclared wars, which it seems we are, then the delegate should have to seek permission to wage such from the RA.

This has been addressed - see section 42.

Against. I am not in favour of permitting the Executive to destroy regions without prior approval from the RA.

Especially with how quickly regions can get destroyed relative to the RA organizing itself to stop the region destruction.

This has been addressed - see section 42.

I'd like to suggest changing the name away from "The North Pacific Army Doctrine" - it's not really a doctrine anymore with the proposed changes, and I think it's more confusing for it to keep that name.

I'm not sure how to best replace it... "Military Management and Operations" or something like that, maybe?

I don't think it was a doctrine as such even when it was first drafted, though I kinda like the name of the section anyway. It is easy to refer to it as the doctrine.

@Zyvetskistaahn I tried to follow your suggestions and I have implemented some of them. However for the sake of clarity, it may be better to track any proposed changes.

1) I kept in the reference to the designated executive officer just to keep it clear that the power can be exercised by the MoD
2) I added in "and its allies" to clause 1 of article 7
3) I updated clause 3 - however i left it as administer, rather than make and administer, as it seems clear enough that administer means both

 

[St George]

Following the changes, I think I can support this.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I am in support of revising the NPA doctrine, I think the changes are well thought out and well overdue. (I'd also follow Asta's suggestion and rename it into something else.)

I don't see the need to enshrine the NPA into the constitution. I think the clarifications regarding membership are better left for the Legal Code. I would prefer this bill without the constitutional amendment.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Alright, I've changed the name to "The North Pacific Army Management and Operations for the legal code sections.

Any further comments?

 

[Gorundu]

I am in support of revising the NPA doctrine, I think the changes are well thought out and well overdue. (I'd also follow Asta's suggestion and rename it into something else.)

I don't see the need to enshrine the NPA into the constitution. I think the clarifications regarding membership are better left for the Legal Code. I would prefer this bill without the constitutional amendment.

I agree with r3n in that the NPA doesn't need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The NPA is under the Ministry of Defence, which is just one of several ministries in the Executive. As the arrangement of the Executive is left (almost) entirely up to the Delegate, I see no need to enshrine one part of the Executive into the Constitution.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I agree with r3n in that the NPA doesn't need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The NPA is under the Ministry of Defence, which is just one of several ministries in the Executive. As the arrangement of the Executive is left (almost) entirely up to the Delegate, I see no need to enshrine one part of the Executive into the Constitution.

Well we could also have no section in the legal code and simply leave it entirely up to the Delegate as well, but I do not think that is desirable and nobody would want that. So I think if it isn't going to be in the constitution, it shouldn't be because the Delegate can arrange the Executive however they like.

Ultimately I think the North Pacific Army is a serious and significant enough institution to be included into the Constitution - alongside other aspects of our regional security and government structure. It is far more significant than other areas that are overseen by the other Ministries. However, I will consider this notion further.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I like adding the NPA to the Constitution because it will give the NPA a permanent and clear mission, as well as put some logical parameters around how it is structured and its legal status.

I don't like keeping the clause about the "NPA leadership" changing the cosmetic details of the military based on the results of a poll of NPA members. The military is not and shouldn't be a democracy. It has a mission and purpose, and if the Delegate and the high command decide that changing the rank structure would better accomplish the mission, they should just do it. No need for a vote. This clause puts unreasonable restrictions on the delegate and their appointed military leaders, who should really have complete autonomy over things like that. To make things worse, "NPA Leadership" and "active NPA members" are vague undefined terms that make the clause relatively meaningless.

EDIT: Also, let's just call that chapter of the Legal Code "The North Pacific Army", which makes it more parallel with the names of other chapters. I thought I did that in the original draft, but maybe not.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I'm against this.

Care to elu-cidate? I'm generally for this proposal, but I would like to understand your objections.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Care to elu-cidate? I'm generally for this proposal, but I would like to understand your objections.

I think he was against version 1, so hopefully version 2 is more agreeable.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I like adding the NPA to the Constitution because it will give the NPA a permanent and clear mission, as well as put some logical parameters around how it is structured and its legal status.

I think it's sufficient to just have one clause under the Delegate section along the lines of:

"The Delegate will be the commander-in-chief of all regional military bodies and will administer its internal policies."

or if you prefer:

"The Delegate will be the commander-in-chief of the North Pacific Army and will administer its internal policies."

Both of them set out that a regional military must exist, and the Delegate is in charge of it.

I do not like having an entire section that more-or-less elevates one specific element of the executive government to the same level as our four branches of government --- RA, Executive, Court, and SC. The NPA is an important part of our region's history, but so are a host of other institutions that do not get their own sections in the constitution, and for good reason: The constitution is there to simply delineate the basic elements of government. As we are not a militaristic society, the NPA is not one of them.

I don't like keeping the clause about the "NPA leadership" changing the cosmetic details of the military based on the results of a poll of NPA members. The military is not and shouldn't be a democracy. It has a mission and purpose, and if the Delegate and the high command decide that changing the rank structure would better accomplish the mission, they should just do it. No need for a vote. This clause puts unreasonable restrictions on the delegate and their appointed military leaders, who should really have complete autonomy over things like that. To make things worse, "NPA Leadership" and "active NPA members" are vague undefined terms that make the clause relatively meaningless.

EDIT: Also, let's just call that chapter of the Legal Code "The North Pacific Army", which makes it more parallel with the names of other chapters. I thought I did that in the original draft, but maybe not.

I agree with both of these. I would either remove that clause completely, or at most simply say that the Delegate can take care about cosmetic details. No need for either mention of an "NPA leadership", or for polls.

One last note: Please make consistent use of "North Pacific Army" and "NPA". Right now, half of the clauses use the full name, and the other half the abbreviation.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I am grateful for the changes that have been made to the draft and think that they do improve the proposal.

I have thought further on new clause 42. At the moment, it groups together a number of provisions that at the moment are contained in different parts of the NPA Doctrine, for instance: clause 3 of the current Doctrine includes the present provision requiring the NPA to give natives the means to restore the region, whereas, clause 5 includes the prohibition on the removal of natives.

It seems to me that, for these different levels of destructive act (in the sense that not providing means to restore can be rectified by the NPA whereas removing a native can't be), there could be a case to be made for different systems for or levels of approval. I wonder if the proposer has thoughts in relation to that.

I remain concerned as to the question of authorisation by category, though I do think prior approval of exceptions does, largely, resolve the question of oversight. Such authorisations, unless narrowly drawn, could put the Delegate and the NPA in a difficult position of having to make what could be thought of as legal decisions on the scope of the authorisation and which could render operations open to legal challenge, which I would undesirable for all involved. It may be that the answer is simply to ensure that the Delegate and the Assembly in future ensure that authorisations are narrowly drawn but I think that the better system would be for the law to require exceptions name specific regions.

From the perspective of drafting, I think it perhaps makes sense for new clause 42 to be separated out a little, if only to remove the provision for exceptions to a subsequent clause, given that it is a somewhat unwieldy clause at the moment.

On the Constitution, and I may be reading too much into it, but my impression from the drafting was that part of the purpose of the proposal is to make some ambiguous elements of the NPA's structure and governance clearer while avoiding the possibility that some of those clarifications would run afoul of parts of the Constitution. The most obvious one, I would think, being the clause excluding the NPA from being a government body (unnecessary and inappropriate though I think that portion is) and its officers from being government officials. Leaving to one side whether the NPA actually is a government body or its officers government officials at the moment, clarification of those points would need to be in the Constitution to be effective. The question then, surely, is whether the clarification is necessary or desirable.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I am grateful for the changes that have been made to the draft and think that they do improve the proposal.

I have thought further on new clause 42. At the moment, it groups together a number of provisions that at the moment are contained in different parts of the NPA Doctrine, for instance: clause 3 of the current Doctrine includes the present provision requiring the NPA to give natives the means to restore the region, whereas, clause 5 includes the prohibition on the removal of natives.

It seems to me that, for these different levels of destructive act (in the sense that not providing means to restore can be rectified by the NPA whereas removing a native can't be), there could be a case to be made for different systems for or levels of approval. I wonder if the proposer has thoughts in relation to that.

I remain concerned as to the question of authorisation by category, though I do think prior approval of exceptions does, largely, resolve the question of oversight. Such authorisations, unless narrowly drawn, could put the Delegate and the NPA in a difficult position of having to make what could be thought of as legal decisions on the scope of the authorisation and which could render operations open to legal challenge, which I would undesirable for all involved. It may be that the answer is simply to ensure that the Delegate and the Assembly in future ensure that authorisations are narrowly drawn but I think that the better system would be for the law to require exceptions name specific regions.

From the perspective of drafting, I think it perhaps makes sense for new clause 42 to be separated out a little, if only to remove the provision for exceptions to a subsequent clause, given that it is a somewhat unwieldy clause at the moment.

On the Constitution, and I may be reading too much into it, but my impression from the drafting was that part of the purpose of the proposal is to make some ambiguous elements of the NPA's structure and governance clearer while avoiding the possibility that some of those clarifications would run afoul of parts of the Constitution. The most obvious one, I would think, being the clause excluding the NPA from being a government body (unnecessary and inappropriate though I think that portion is) and its officers from being government officials. Leaving to one side whether the NPA actually is a government body or its officers government officials at the moment, clarification of those points would need to be in the Constitution to be effective. The question then, surely, is whether the clarification is necessary or desirable.

I considered having two levels of approval, or rather two categories. You're not the only one to suggest this either. My issue with that is that I was not sure what I would put in the lower level category, while the category that requires some RA involvement seems relatively clear. However I do agree that at the moment that particular clause is a little wordy. It is still workable but could be improved.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I have decided to rework this proposal. The constitutional amendment to resolve the NPA's status will be dealt with as a separate proposal.

In the legal code amendments, I have adopted the suggestion by Zyvet, Darcania and others that we take a two levels of exceptions for action against other regions. These are separated out as sections 42 and sections 43 respectively.

Essentially section 42 comprises of actions that can be rectified by The North Pacific Army. This is particularly relevant for circumstances where the North Pacific Army's operation is overturned by the Regional Assembly. This also means that we would be able to take limited action - with Delegates approval - against particular regions. For instance, during the recent conflict with CCD we were able to deploy the NPA to various embassy regions in response. If this law were to pass, the NPA could have taken additional action such as closing CCD embassies or passwording the region, while the Regional Assembly considered approving further action under section 43. If the RA were to overturn that operation, the Embassy clsoure could be cancelled and the password removed.

Section 43 comprises of actions that ought to be considered to be permanent harm to the region. Such as refounding a region or ejecting natives. It is in these circumstances where it is reasonable to expect that the Delegate would first seek the approval of the Regional Assembly before the NPA could undertake this action.

 

[Robespierre]

I am very much a fan of anything that affords the North Pacific Army increased flexibility when it comes to the operations we carry out. It’s good to see us further empowering our Delegate to make executive decisions that match their executive status, and I think that long term this will make things a lot better for everyone.

These changes make the order of things a lot more clear cut whilst also still maintaining a balance of power between the Delegate, the Executive Council, and being accountable to the Regional Assembly at all times. Separating clause forty-two into two clauses seems to satisfy concerns about the Delegate being given such free range authority, because by allowing the Regional Assembly to have increased oversight over the process of exemption we can always make sure that our Ministry of Defense isn’t shying away from the values we hold here.

This ensures that we’re still not treating target regions with any degree of disrespect, but it does actively put in place framework for what needs to happen if and when we do happen to have a use for passwording a region or acting in accordance with certain situationals. All and all, I’d be inclined to support this move for modernization.

 

[Pallaith]

This has my support.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

The reworked version addresses my previous issues. So, full support.

 

[Eluvatar]

I would add to (46) a requirement to reverse any actions taken.

 

[Darcania]

I would add to (46) a requirement to reverse any actions taken.

Such a requirement would be impossible in any RA-sanctioned destructive mission, since such a mission is defined as being irreparable. It'd have to be worded just so.

 

[Praetor]

Perhaps (in precise wording) specify that the region must be attempted to be returned to its original state (eg. clearing the ban list)?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I would add to (46) a requirement to reverse any actions taken.

I echo Darcania's comment on this.

Perhaps (in precise wording) specify that the region must be attempted to be returned to its original state (eg. clearing the ban list)?

I think this is covered by 42 where it says in relation to excessive harm, that: "Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state". This is consistent with the current NPA doctrine as well and the standard operating procedure for invasion actions.

I move for a vote Speaker @Deropia.

During formal debate, further amendments or suggestions will be considered as usual during this period.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I think this is covered by 42 where it says in relation to excessive harm, that: "Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state". This is consistent with the current NPA doctrine as well and the standard operating procedure for invasion actions.

I think there is still an issue, in that that part of section 42 can be covered by an authorised exception, so I would agree that there should be specific provision for cancelled operations.

Perhaps, amend the clause to:

The North Pacific Army must promptly withdraw from any operation that the Regional Assembly cancels by majority vote. Where an operation is cancelled, the North Pacific Army must take reasonable steps to restore or to provide natives with the means to restore any region subject to the operation.

I frame it in terms of reasonable steps as opposed to the more absolute obligation under section 42 because, clearly, it may have to cover circumstances where the NPA cannot actually restore or provide the means to restore the region (I don't think it would be realistic to say the NPA must entice ejected nations back or devise a way to do so, for instance, whereas clearing a banlist would seem a reasonable step towards doing so), but I think there would be circumstances where the reasonable step would actually be to restore or provide means to do so.

 

[Deropia]

I move for a vote Speaker @Deropia.

The Speakers Office recognizes the motion to vote by the Honourable Delegate @mcmasterdonia. This bill is now in Formal Debate.

Formal Debate shall last for a period of five (5) days and will conclude (time=1580950800). At such time the bill will no longer be eligible to be modified and a vote will be scheduled to begin no sooner than 2 days after the conclusion of formal debate.

 

[Deropia]

Formal debate on this bill has concluded. A vote is scheduled to begin at approximately (time=1581121800).