[R4R] Illegal actions by partners of the North Pacific Army during joint operations

[BMWSurfer]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The decision by Ministers of Defense to allow the NPA to conduct joint operations with organizations who do not follow the standards set for the NPA in the Legal Code on that joint operation. Evidence of and information about this specific policy is included below in the “further information” section.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Legal Code section 7.6, articles 32 and 33:

32. 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.

33. 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.

If the NPA is not directly breaking the above laws, by assisting other organizations in doing so, is that legal? By contributing to operations in which these laws are not followed, the NPA allows itself to circumvent the law through its relationships with other regions.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
None of which I am aware.

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
As a soldier and officer of the NPA, it is in my interests to know whether or not I am being ordered to break the law during joint operations as I could be taken to Court

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
The North Pacific has a strong tradition of democracy and of upholding and following the laws. We have agreed to standards that the NPA has to follow, which require the NPA to act in a dignified and restrained matter while deployed abroad. The region deserves to know if the NPA is circumventing these requirements, and if they are, to have the situation rectified.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
I have two pieces of evidence to bring before the court today. The first is an apparently ongoing operation in Chicken Overlords, embassies are being closed and a possible native being ejected and banned by a member of Lily.

Spoiler: Chicken Overlords

417 embassies are (as of this writing) being withdrawn, as shown in the image below.

Additionally, it appears as though a native was banned and ejected, before being unbanned at a later time. The nation in question is Cicada 3301, who appears to have been banned shortly after saying ”Oh cool, we got raided” on the RMB.

The second is a now declassified joint hold of the region Christmas. This shows that the policy has been in force since at least 2017.

Spoiler: Christmas

On December 12, 2017, then Minister of Defense Gladio ordered the North Pacific Army to move into Christmas, which was being held by The West Pacific. The raider delegate was Jul Hund, and as shown in the image below embassies were both opened and closed during the 21 day operation.
Orders: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9096593/
Embassies:

 

[Just a Lore]

The court is currently in talks about accepting or denying this request, we hope to shortly have decision posted.

At this time would the petitioner like to request the recusal of any sitting justices in regards to this matter?

 

[BMWSurfer]

The court is currently in talks about accepting or denying this request, we hope to shortly have decision posted.

At this time would the petitioner like to request the recusal of any sitting justices in regards to this matter?

I am not seeking the recusal of any sitting justices at this time.

 

[Just a Lore]

I hereby accept this review and will be acting as Moderating Justice.

Due to the nature of the request over a recently declassified events and ongoing policy, Former Minister of Defense, Gladio, named in 'Spoiler=Christmas' & current Minister of Defense 9003 will be contacted shortly as Respondents. [Respondents have been notified as of 1:07pm EST 12/30/20 ~LL]

And furthermore due to the Holiday Season and the End of Year Festivities I will provisionally set the Brief Submitting Period to 7 days ending January 6th 2021 11:59pm EST [UTC-5] (January 7th 2021 4:59am GMT [UTC+0]) briefs submitted after this period may be disregarded by the Court.

 

[9003]

If it pleases the court the following is my brief and humble opinions on the matter.

The Status Quo
As stated by the petitioner on a number of operations we support organizations that alter embassies, most commonly when we go on tag runs with The Black Hawks or Lilly, and recently involved in an op that a native was removed but quickly rectified upon my request. During joint operations it is made clear that when our members serve as "lead" or point on the operation that they will not remove or add embassy, most times other orgs then function as lead and allow us to support but not lead. This policy is displayed in the the discord server and reiterated periodically. The logic behind the status quo is that we as the NPA are respecting natives by not taking the actions directly. This has been the policy for as long as I remember, my training was that as long as we are not leading the op other orgs are not bound by our rules.

Breaking the law down

32. When deployed in a foreign region,

As seen here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7411345/ the RA and NPA has defined deployment to include on going long term operations such as holds, assisting with delegate transitions and liberations and other operations that span more then 1 update.

The North Pacific Army

us and only us as our laws can not apply to other sovereign regions or organizations with out a treaty.

will act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force

(bolding mine)
Means that we have to show respect to the natives AND refrain from excessive use of force. The excessive force is simple, NPA members are already not allowed to take destructive actions if they are the point for a joint operation but, being in a supporting role directly enables other orgs to take destructive actions that are against our laws thus does not extend the respect that natives are allotted via our laws.

 

[QuietDad]

As a former twoterm Minister of Defense, current General and the NPA member with the most ops ever. the NPA Doctrine and TNP laws do in fact prohibit the NPA in closing embassies , ejecting natives and griefing in an op. Recent events have created exempt regions list by action of the delegate of regions we want to refound where there are no rules. As far as joint ops, the rules we have always followed it that whoever calls the o pand leads in makes the rules and we follow them. The NPA, even when we are made ROs with powers, does not close embessies, post on the RMB or eject natives even if members of other armies do. We are simply bodies for numbers. On the op that brought this to question, the NPA participated but no NPA soldiers performed any illegal acts..
The nature of gameplay sometimes has the NPA partnering with armies and regions that differ in our doctrine, but EVERY op is always done with the approval of the sitting delegate so as such, the NPA isnot out on it's own doing illegal things.

 

[Gladio]

A brief by Gladio, NPA General and former Minister of Defense

I would like to clarify some things that were misrepresented by the petitioner of this R4R - BMWSurfer. I would like to start off by saying that during the times when i was MoD the NPA always adhered to the laws of our doctrine, even in operations that weren't led by The NPA. Prior to every joint op with allies or military partners i would always inform them of our military policy and laws to ensure that no illegal actions take place.

In regards to the op in Christmas:
BMWSurfer notes that the op in Christmas was a "raid/hold" and that the point nation from TWPAF (Jul Hund) was a "raider delegate". In reality it was actually the opposite, the op in Christmas as can be seen from the report here was a defensive op and not a "raid/hold" as BMWSurfer claims and that Jul Hund was not a "raider delegate". In regards to the embassy changes, the point nation from TWPAF (Jul Hund) was fixing the damage done from a previous raid on the region i.e removing embassies established by the raiders and restoring the old legitimate embassies, a standard practice for defensive ops. Section 3.b of the old NPA doctrine which was in force during 2017 states that The NPA must "Respect the culture of the region and the wishes of the natives". The NPA along with our partners from TWPAF was acting in accordance with the wishes of the natives to preserve their region, therefore no illegal actions took place during that particular op.

 

[BMWSurfer]

My apologies for the incorrect information, it was not my intention to mislead the court on this matter. I appreciate the clarification provided by Gladio.

However, I don’t believe the brief filed by Gladio changes the essence of this request. The recent actions of the NPA are quite clear and the potentiality for them to be illegal.

 

[Praetor]

My apologies to the Court for the tardiness; I read the date wrong and then quickly finished my work so I apologize if anything is unclear and would be willing to elaborate if the Court seeks it.

If I may, I would like to submit a number of points for consideration by the Court as a private citizen which I believe are of relevance and have not been raised yet:

On BMW’s Personal Standing
I concur with BMW’s rationale in his request for review as to his personal standing related to this government standing. Conceivably, if the government policy is found to be illegal, following the policy would expose the petitioner to a potential indictment.

On Regional Interest
I also concur with BMW’s rationale in his request for review as to the regional interest in the questions being reviewed. The NPA must follow the laws that are set out by the Regional Assembly, in the event that the law is not being followed, it is in the interest of the region that this is determined.

In Response to 9003’s Brief
I would urge members of the Court to disregard 9003’s “Breaking the law down” section of his brief where makes significant errors in each attempt he makes at analyzing the law.

First, 9003 incorrectly cites this as to how the NPA has defined deployment. I will note that that thread is not a vote on how to define deployment.

Second, 9003 interprets “The North Pacific Army” as meaning “us and only us as our laws can not apply to other sovereign regions or organizations with out a treaty.” I uncontroversially agree that The North Pacific Army does indeed refer to The North Pacific Army. However, 9003 errs in noting that our laws are unable to apply to other sovereign regions or organizations without a treaty. The Regional Assembly is able to make laws pertaining to other regions or organizations without a treaty—The Exempted Regions List contains a list of regions affected by our laws (in that it creates permissibility for the NPA to take actions they would typically not be able to do). The Regional Assembly is able to make laws that concern other regions either specifically or broadly without a treaty—there is no responsibility on the other party or parties to follow our laws but there remains responsibility that the NPA must.

Third, 9003 states:

NPA members are already not allowed to take destructive actions if they are the point for a joint operation but, being in a supporting role directly enables other orgs to take destructive actions that are against our laws thus does not extend the respect that natives are allotted via our laws

There is no rationale given here as to why this is the interpretation of the law, rather, 9003 just restates the current interpretation of the law by the NPA without any basis for it.

However, I would encourage the Court to note 9003—the current Minister of Defence—stating that his interpretation is that the NPA is permitted to be on operations with other regions where the other organizations do not follow the operating parameters the NPA is bound by. Furthermore, I would draw the Court’s attention to 9003 stating that the current interpretation he uses is to circumvent the law—as per his interpretation—and let the NPA enable destructive action indirectly.

The one argument of relevance from 9003’s brief is that “The logic behind the status quo is that we as the NPA are respecting natives by not taking the actions directly.” I will address this unfounded argument further below in my brief.

In Response to QuietDad’s Brief
QuietDad—one of the longest concurrent NPA members—directly states that “the rules we have always followed it that whoever calls the o pand leads in makes the rules and we follow them”. This supports 9003’s current interpretation of the law above.

I would like to draw the Court’s attention to another statement of QuietDad: “EVERY op is always done with the approval of the sitting delegate so as such, the NPA isnot out on it's own doing illegal things”. I cannot emphasize enough just because the sitting Delegate is approving the operation that the operation is illegal. This argument should be wholly discarded. Following this ridiculous argument, for example, our treaty with Balder would not prevent the Delegate of The North Pacific from attempting to overthrow the government of Balder.

In Response to Gladio’s Brief
I appreciate Gladio’s information on the stance of the NPA while he was Minister of Defence and I also appreciate the effort Gladio made to follow the law and ensure that regions we were partnering with did as well. However, I would like to draw the Court’s attention that in the post directly above Gladio’s brief QuietDadcontradicts Gladio’s position as QuietDad expressly notes that “the rules we have always followed it that whoever calls the o pand leads in makes the rules and we follow them” (emphasis mine).

While I am unaware of what the true policy of the NPA has been, I do wish to demonstrate to the Court the confusion that currently exists even amongst long-time and high-ranking members of the NPA.

On Possible Interpretations of the Law
If I may be so bold, I would suggest that there are three possible methods for the Court as to how to resolve the legal question at hand. The Court can resolve based on a literal interpretation and reading of the law, the Court can resolve based on the intent of the law, or the Court could resolve based on the flaw reasoning used by the high-ranking members of the NPA for the status quo.

I would argue that the interpretation that the Court should use is based upon what the law means. While it is possible for the literal interpretation of the law and the intent of the law to diverge, it is also possible for despite not wanting that particular interpretation originally when the law was enacted, that the RA is satisfied with it and the intent has changed over time.

On Literal Interpretation of the Law
The law states:

32. 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.

33. 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.

The meaning of the law is quite clear in how it is written. It prevents the NPA from committing a variety of actions. The NPA by supporting other organizations committing those actions demonstrates support for those who are not acting with respect towards natives of the region and thus the NPA themselves are not acting with respect towards the natives of the region. Furthermore, a plain reading of the text shows that under a number of scenarios, it would not be permissible to assist in operations where other organizations are committing acts of regional destruction. For example, if the NPA is endorsing a Delegate who is banjecting natives, members of the NPA are providing influence to the Delegate which is being used to accomplish the banjections of natives. Thus, the NPA is forcibly removing natives from the region in contrary to the law. Additionally, the NPA are required by the law to provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state, if the NPA is helping another organization lock a region down (eg. password it and/or refound it), they are unable to then provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state.

On an Interpretation of Intent
If the Court decides to investigate the intent of the law, I would reference them to where (based upon my research) the law was introduced: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191629/#post-10299652

In that thread, I would note that there are concerns expressed about the ability for the NPA to commit acts of regional destruction raised for example, raised by St. George and myself. The purpose of the law is to provide flexibility in how the NPA is able to operate as per the author. Furthermore, methods are provided for when even greater flexibility is needed and acts which would be illegal can become legal. This provides a method for Delegates when they believe actions which would be illegal can be legal. Permitting the NPA to bypass the restrictions on their actions through the use of an intermediary goes wholly against the intent of the law.

On the Status Quo Reasoning
The only reasoning provided as to the current interpretation of the law is by 9003 with “we as the NPA are respecting natives by not taking the actions directly”. This is rather faulty reasoning as should be evidenced by now. It is not respectful to a region to indirectly destroy the region. The effect on the natives is the same regardless of whether the NPA is doing it directly or if they are supporting someone else who is doing the actions. As such, this line of argument should be dismissed.

Scenarios to Consider
If it is permissible for the NPA to continue to use the interpretation of the law there are a number of scenarios that could occur which would be quite problematic for the RA being able to oversee the NPA.

For example, if 9003 decided that he wanted to destroy a region which is not exempted, he could personally “merc” by himself to take over the region, then an officer could decide that they would collaborate with 9003 individually on an operation and provide 9003 with endorsements required to seize the Delegacy. 9003 would then be able to take illegal actions despite only being able to accomplish those with the support of the NPA. This would painly contravene the attempts of the RA to direct what the NPA can or cannot do.

In Conclusion
It is clear that at some point (the exact period unclear) the NPA has adopted a policy that . This is demonstrated both during the now concluded operation in Chicken Overlords and the briefs of 9003 and QuietDad. Regardless of any operations being concluded in which partnering regions are committing illegal actions, the question of what the law details should be resolved now.

 

[9003]

To clarify for the Praetor,

First, 9003 incorrectly cites this as to how the NPA has defined deployment. I will note that that thread is not a vote on how to define deployment.

it is a precedent showing that we don't report tag runs in the "NPA Deployment Notifications" if you have a better defined example I'd be more then happy to see it and correct my earlier statement.

Second, 9003 interprets “The North Pacific Army” as meaning “us and only us as our laws can not apply to other sovereign regions or organizations with out a treaty.” I uncontroversially agree that The North Pacific Army does indeed refer to The North Pacific Army. However, 9003 errs in noting that our laws are unable to apply to other sovereign regions or organizations without a treaty. The Regional Assembly is able to make laws pertaining to other regions or organizations without a treaty—The Exempted Regions List contains a list of regions affected by our laws (in that it creates permissibility for the NPA to take actions they would typically not be able to do). The Regional Assembly is able to make laws that concern other regions either specifically or broadly without a treaty—there is no responsibility on the other party or parties to follow our laws but there remains responsibility that the NPA must.

Our laws can be about other regions but they can not apply to those regions members in the sense that I can't hold the nations of Lily reasonable for our laws. This interpretation does however support the status quo that is not my interpretation but I wanted to provide insight into the status quo and where it came from.

There is no rationale given here as to why this is the interpretation of the law, rather, 9003 just restates the current interpretation of the law by the NPA without any basis for it.

Did you not read the next sentence when I express my opinion on the matter? If that is the case allow me to restate it and make it a little clearer what I mean. The law clearly states that we have to "act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force" (bolding mine). Meaning that we must show respect to natives and refrain from excessive force. As you stated we are not showing respect to the natives if we are enabling or supporting others to use excessive force. I believe that the law should be applied to operations that we support in addition to ones that we lead.

In reference to Chicken overlords when the native was banned I quickly told lily that it was against our laws to do that and we would have to remove ourselves from the operation if they kicked more or if they did not unban the native immediately.

 

[Just a Lore]

Sorry for the delay but the period for submitting briefs ended as of 12am this morning. Both posts from Praetor and 9003 were posted after the cutoff and therefor may be ignored by the court.

 

[Just a Lore]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by BMWSurfer on the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations.
Opinion drafted by Lord Lore, joined by Vivanco and saintpeter​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by BMWSurfer.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here & Hereby 9003.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed Here by QuietDad.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed Here by Gladio.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed Here by Praetor.


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

32. 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.
33. 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.

The Court opines the following:

On Standing:

As a member and officer within the North Pacific Army (hereby NPA) the petitioner clearly has standing in regards to policies decisions and the actions of superiors within the NPA as those policies and actions if followed could place the petitioner in violation of The North Pacific's Legal Code.

On the nature of the information provided to the court:

While some information in the request was misstated in its characteristics, the court never-the-less finds the underlying question posted to be valid and even without the acceptance of additional actions of the government the clarification of the policy's legality still stands.

Conclusion:

The Court finds that an NPA Policy that would allow the NPA to support raids that engage in acts prohibited by Section 7.6 of the Legal Code would put the NPA in violation of The North Pacific's Legal Code.

Section 7 Subsection 6 Clauses 32 & 33 are designed specifically to limit the harmful impact that the NPA can have while deployed in foreign regions. As such the Court finds that not being in control of operation does not shield the NPA from the limitations placed on it by the Regional Assembly through The North Pacific's Legal Code.

While The North Pacific's Legal Code can not directly tell foreign military forces, organizations, & regions how to conduct operations, but the NPA clearly falls under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific's Legal Code and if the actions would be a violation of the Legal Code for a member of the NPA to commit then the NPA can not passively or actively support the violations that occur without itself being in violation of 7.6.32 and/or 7.6.33. Clauses 32 and 33 of Section 7.6 have clearly defined exemption requirements set by the Regional Assembly and those must be respected by the NPA.