[Private] Request for Review: NPA & Legal Code 7.6.32&33

Just a Lore

Just a Lore

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartography
-
-
Pronouns
He/They/Any
TNP Nation
Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
Discord
Just_a_Lore
This shall serve as the discussion thread for the Request for the Court to Review this thread pertaining to a question on if the NPA & Minister of Defense is in violation of Legal Code Section 7.6 Articles 32 & 33 by joining raids of other regions who violate this section of TNP Law. @Vivanco @saintpeter

I have accepted the request and as Moderation Justice have set a Brief Submitting period of 7 days due to the Holiday Season.


[07:17] Justice Vivanco of the Tremere.: A new R4R has been filed @Court
forum.thenorthpacific.org

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

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...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
[07:17] Justice Vivanco of the Tremere.: @Just a Wah , would you mind taking care of it?
[08:19] Justice Vivanco of the Tremere.: So that all members of the court can be active
[18:34] Justice Vivanco of the Tremere.: If you can't, do tell me ASAP so I can take it over
30 December 2020
[01:47] Just a Wah: @Court I am in favor of accepting this request. They have standing and a valid legal question. I would be willing to moderate if needed.
[07:41] Justice Vivanco of the Tremere.: Do moderate it, please @Just a Wah
[08:18] Dr Druk Gyalpo (Dragon King), MD: Agree.
[13:10] Just a Wah: Given the luck of the court this term I can only assume this humble r4r will somehow snowball into 5 R4Rs and 3 Criminal Cases.

*Note for Discord Logs. "Just a Wah" is Justice Lord Lore, "Justice Vivanco of the Tremere is Justice Vivanco, and "Dr Druk Gyalpo (Dragon King), MD" is Justice saintpeter.
 
About the acceptance or not of Praetor's brief.

The period was set in a provisional matter, and we are allowed to accept those that are submitted after this period.

The time set was January 7th, 2021 at 4:59 GMT, And Praetor's post was submitted at the same day, but at 19:43 GMT, hours after the supposed deadline.

However, due to the provisional nature of this date, and for Praetor's explanation for their delay, I would be inclined to accept it.
 
Well, it does seem like they will be ignored nonetheless.
 
Lets just test the waters here. Where is everyone currently leaning?

How I currently see it. The law is clear and has no exceptions or addendums, the NPA shall not do the list of things and I believe it should be held to that while joining any other region or organization's excursions it is fundamentally violating the law by using someone else's hand to push the button/
 
I agree that such behavior can succumb to a second-hand violation of the laws, and the support of those that do not have respect as it is rated within the laws of the region could mean a second-hand disrespect from the army
 
I agree that the NPA is not allowed to engage in military operations in which its partners violate the cited sections of the Legal Code.

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.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, a literal reading of the text supports this conclusion. The NPA, under the law, is required to "act with respect towards the natives of the region, and refrain from excessive use of force". The section goes on to list examples, but these are not exhaustive as to the restrictions set by the law. To any reasonable person, supporting a military operation in which the natives are not respected is itself not respectful towards those natives. The Court ought, thus, to find the NPA cannot get around the restrictions in the law by having an individual not associated with the NPA lead the operation.

On the other hand, even if we decided not to merely use a literal reading, this reading is still supported. It would obviously be obnoxious to the principles underlying the law in question to allow the NPA to avoid scrutiny by having someone else, be it a foreign army or a mercenary, lead the operation. This obvious absurdity can only be resolved by adhering to the aformentioned interpretation.
 
Since we are all pretty much on the same wavelength here. I will take it upon myself to write a first draft when I get off work tonight posting it either early tomorrow morning or late evening when I wake up.
 
I don't like how overblown ruling have gotten as long as I am the writer and primary on this I would like to deliver a plain English ruling as such here is what I am currently thinking of.

court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North PacificIn 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 [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

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.
Click to expand...
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 the NPA as those policies and actions if followed could place the petitioner in violation of TNP Law.

On the nature of the information provided to the court:

While some information in the request was misstated in it's characteristics, the court never-the-less finds the underlying question posted to be valid and even without the acceptance of an 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 supports raids that engage in acts prohibited by Section 7.6 of the Legal Code would put the NPA in violation of the Laws of The North Pacific.

Section 7 Subsection 6 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 supporting violations of the TNP Legal Code.

While the TNP Legal Code can not directly tell foreign military forces, organization, & regions how to conduct operations the NPA clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the TNP Legal Code and as such it's continued support of an operation in which violations of Parts 32 and 33 of Section 7.6 have been enacted is a willful enabling of those actions, as such a willful violation of the limitations placed on the NPA by the Regional Assembly.
 
Last edited:
I would replace the abbreviations for the full words, myself
 
I rewrote the second and third paragraphs a little cuz they were clunky and fixed those two things. I am comfortable posting it in this state if you two are.

Ruling of the Court of The North PacificIn 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 [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

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.
Click to expand...
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 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 an 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 supports 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 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, organization, & regions how to conduct operations the NPA clearly falls under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific's Legal Code and as such it's continued support of an operation in which violations of Parts 32 and 33 of Section 7.6 have been enacted is a willful enabling of those actions, as such a willful violation of those limitations placed on the NPA by the Regional Assembly.
 
Lord Lore:
Section 7 Subsection 6 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.
Click to expand...
Section 7 Subsection 6 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.
(Bolded is my correction)
I would explain a bit how it is a violation not by action but by lack of it, by second hand responsability.
 
"military forces, organization, & regions" — "organization" should be "organizations".
"and as such it's continued support" — "it's" should be "its".

I would add that working with an army knowing it plans to destroy a region is, prima facie, not the "respect towards the natives" the Legal Code commands.
 
court_seal.png



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 [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

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.
Click to expand...
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.

Sorry for the delay, IRL has been a little busy. I changed some wording and a tweaked a few things here and there to better emphasize what was already there but I honestly stand by it as it is. I want to reiterate I want to write this in plain English and I don't think it really provides any benefit to explain something multiple times in different ways. I already wrote it to say that providing support to operations that would violate the clauses in question is a violation in itself, I dont see how stressing the principles of second-hand responsibilities or highlighting a specific part of one of the two clauses really changes anything.
 
I was wondering if we should add on who exactly would be breaking the law, in this case I would think the responsibility would lie in those in responsibility of the raid in particular, those in charge of coordinating that raid / who allowed the raid to happen in the first place
 
Lord Lore:
court_seal.png



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 [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

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:

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.

Sorry for the delay, IRL has been a little busy. I changed some wording and a tweaked a few things here and there to better emphasize what was already there but I honestly stand by it as it is. I want to reiterate I want to write this in plain English and I don't think it really provides any benefit to explain something multiple times in different ways. I already wrote it to say that providing support to operations that would violate the clauses in question is a violation in itself, I dont see how stressing the principles of second-hand responsibilities or highlighting a specific part of one of the two clauses really changes anything.
Click to expand...
Sounds good.
 
Vivanco:
I was wondering if we should add on who exactly would be breaking the law, in this case I would think the responsibility would lie in those in responsibility of the raid in particular, those in charge of coordinating that raid / who allowed the raid to happen in the first place
Click to expand...
Personally I think that could add a scapegoat situation where if it is named as a specific individual blame could be shifted against someone who didn't issue an order. I would rather keep it a little more open ended so that it could be applied to whoever is issuing orders and give protection to cite for individuals who disobey orders that would be in defiance of the ruling.

If you want to try writing up something to add into the draft to consider how it would work, I would not be opposed to considering it.
 
Last edited:
Lord Lore:
Personally I think that could add a scapegoat situation where if it is named as a specific individual blame could be shifted against someone who didn't issue an order. I would rather keep it a little more open ended so that it could be applied to whoever is issuing orders and give protection to cite for individuals who disobey orders that would be in defiance of the ruling.
Click to expand...
Then I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Last edited:
29 December 2020
[07:17] guitar player: A new R4R has been filed @Court
forum.thenorthpacific.org

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

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...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
[07:17] guitar player: @Just a Wah , would you mind taking care of it?
[08:19] guitar player: So that all members of the court can be active
[18:34] guitar player: If you can't, do tell me ASAP so I can take it over
30 December 2020
[01:47] Just a Wah: @Court I am in favor of accepting this request. They have standing and a valid legal question. I would be willing to moderate if needed.
[07:41] guitar player: Do moderate it, please @Just a Wah
[08:18] Pete: Agree.
[13:10] Just a Wah: Given the luck of the court this term I can only assume this humble r4r will somehow snowball into 5 R4Rs and 3 Criminal Cases.
[15:50] guitar player: This is where the fun begins
6 January 2021
[09:28] guitar player: This will most definitely rise a R4R
[12:26] Pete: I have my thoughts about what happened but will reserve them in deference to the Court.
7 January 2021
[15:07] Pete: @Court It's time to consider the R4R on the military thing. Let's use the thread on the forum to discuss. LL: can you send a reply in the thread to notify people we're considering it? Also, Prae's brief is too late I think. Will we accept it?
[18:00] guitar player: I have talked in the Private Court thread about Praetor's acceptance
9 January 2021
[00:36] Just a Wah: I am in favor of accepting it and 9003's response. That being said @Court I have given my current standing in the thread, just waiting to see where you two are currently.
10 January 2021
[11:35] Pete: I commented in the thread.
11 January 2021
[06:16] Just a Wah: @Court First draft is now in the chambers. It is not long shouldn't take long to review I am a firm believer in the "Why use a five dollar word when a 50 center one will do" and "Why use 100 words when one will do" mentalities.
17 January 2021
[14:00] Just a Wah: Should have another draft ready tomorrow morning. I have been busy with RL recently.
[14:20] Pete: I'll comment in a couple hours.
[20:14] guitar player: I have tried to do a comment but I have been unable to. I will be doing it tomorrow
24 January 2021
[17:55] Pete: @Court As to the R4R: I think there is an agreement as to the current draft (at least from me). If so, LL can release it. As to the court case, I'll draft a judgement in the coming couple days. Feel free to continue to discuss the exact punishment in the mean time.
[21:00] Just a Wah: Currently at work i will get on it when i get home close to midnight
26 January 2021
[00:15] Just a Wah: @Court Just want to get a definitive answer on if you are joining the current draft that is proposed.(edited)
[00:20] guitar player: Aye
[04:24] Pete: Yes.


Footnote: guitar player = Chief Justice Vivanco. Just a Wah = Justice Lord Lore. Pete = Justice saintpeter.

*Edited to add Footnote.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top