[PASSED] The Foreign Affairs Toolbox Expansion Act

Praetor

Praetor

Hoppin' Around
TNP Nation
Praeceps
Discord
Praetor#6889
In my last time as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I was working on suggesting some new legislation related to our foreign affairs. Unfortunately, we did not have time to present it to the Regional Assembly. With me back as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Madjack has taken a look at this as well and supported the power that this legislation would bring to the region. McMasterdonia and I were discussing for quite some time how there are limited options in The North Pacific’s foreign affairs toolbox when interacting with other regions. We have also discussed how that of the methods in our toolbox (collaboration or lack of collaboration with the NPA, closing embassies in-game or on the forum, etc.) that many of them are only temporary. We have previously observed that if regions wrong TNP and action is taken against them or if they are unable to get their way with TNP there is a perspective from other regions that they can just “wait it out” until there is a new administration which would take a different stance. This bill seeks to provide diplomatic tools that the government of TNP can use to take a harsher stance if necessary.

This new method prohibits any new embassies in-game or on the forums, prohibits joint cultural events, and any new treaties with the region or organization.

The Legal Code shall be amended to include:
Section 7.7: Diplomacy:
38. The Delegate may choose to designate a region or organization to be prohibited from creating in-game embassies and forum embassies, hosting cultural events together or other formal collaborations with The North Pacific with a majority of the Regional Assembly confirming such.
39. These prohibitions may be repealed with a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
40. Regions exempted by the Regional Assembly from the restrictions on the North Pacific Army will automatically have the diplomatic restrictions imposed on them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobberino:
As it stands, the Executive has no standing on Citizenship applications. Thus, this is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
St George:
Given that the government has no input on citizenship applications, how could this be a thing?
Click to expand...
Well... that is kind of what changing the law is for :P

When I mean proscription, by the way, I refer exclusively to regions. The government could put forward a region to the RA as it can do now for military policy exemptions and as this bill aims to do for this sort-of FA blacklist and the Vice-Delegate could simply be required to reject all applicants from those regions. I think this should at least be a thing for regions we're at war with. Though this is probably not a conversation for this thread.
 
Pathoal:
Well... that is kind of what changing the law is for :P

When I mean proscription, by the way, I refer exclusively to regions. The government could put forward a region to the RA as it can do now for military policy exemptions and as this bill aims to do for this sort-of FA blacklist and the Vice-Delegate could simply be required to reject all applicants from those regions. I think this should at least be a thing for regions we're at war with. Though this is probably not a conversation for this thread.
Click to expand...
That's not what we do here.

@Praetor Would codifying this change situations like the recent events with TBH and LWU? That is, with this law, would MadJack have needed to put that to a vote rather than simply direct FA to revoke the embassies and NPA to cease operations with them? Does this distinguish itself from a temporary move? I can see how the bill is meant to place more or less a "permanent" bar on those things which will bind future delegates until the RA weighs in, so I take it delegates would have to be more explicit when they are temporarily revoking these things?
 
Pathoal:
Well... that is kind of what changing the law is for :P

When I mean proscription, by the way, I refer exclusively to regions. The government could put forward a region to the RA as it can do now for military policy exemptions and as this bill aims to do for this sort-of FA blacklist and the Vice-Delegate could simply be required to reject all applicants from those regions. I think this should at least be a thing for regions we're at war with. Though this is probably not a conversation for this thread.
Click to expand...
How do you do that? Like, make the speaker do puppet checks to see if the user has puppet in all those regions and then blacklist them? TNP has never went to the extent of asking for a puppet declaration, and such a change would definitely complicate the citizenship applications.

Anyways, I am curious why this particular idea was crafted as such. Like, why does the Ministry prefer to let the Regional Assembly take charge of such an exemption list?
 
Pathoal:
Well... that is kind of what changing the law is for :P

When I mean proscription, by the way, I refer exclusively to regions. The government could put forward a region to the RA as it can do now for military policy exemptions and as this bill aims to do for this sort-of FA blacklist and the Vice-Delegate could simply be required to reject all applicants from those regions. I think this should at least be a thing for regions we're at war with. Though this is probably not a conversation for this thread.
Click to expand...
This is a topic which may merit discussion. The reason that it isn't included here is because the severity of that is disproportionate to the rest of the measures included in this legislation.

Pallaith:
That's not what we do here.

@Praetor Would codifying this change situations like the recent events with TBH and LWU? That is, with this law, would MadJack have needed to put that to a vote rather than simply direct FA to revoke the embassies and NPA to cease operations with them? Does this distinguish itself from a temporary move? I can see how the bill is meant to place more or less a "permanent" bar on those things which will bind future delegates until the RA weighs in, so I take it delegates would have to be more explicit when they are temporarily revoking these things?
Click to expand...
A revocation (downgrading) would not require authorization from the RA. Yes, this distinguishes from a temporary move. The Delegate could close embassies with a region off-site and not use this process. Or the Delegate could close embassies and have the RA support a hold on anything future pending further review from the RA.

Fregerson:
Anyways, I am curious why this particular idea was crafted as such. Like, why does the Ministry prefer to let the Regional Assembly take charge of such an exemption list?
Click to expand...
Any exemptions can be done without the RA, however, this can only be guaranteed to be last during the term of the Delegate. Giving the Delegate the option to nominate regions to be exempted strengthens our options in FA as we are having the RA support a freeze in relations instead of regions just waiting for the Delegate to change.
 
Alright. I am quite supportive of it, but here is that one small detail I am thinking about.

Officially, under Section 7.6, there are 2 clauses which regions can be exempted from. In the unlikely situation where regions are exempted from only one but not both, will this proposed clause 40 apply for them? Alternatively, could the phrase "restrictions on the North Pacific Army" be changed to make it clear it is referring to the clauses under 7.6?
 
Fregerson:
Alright. I am quite supportive of it, but here is that one small detail I am thinking about.

Officially, under Section 7.6, there are 2 clauses which regions can be exempted from. In the unlikely situation where regions are exempted from only one but not both, will this proposed clause 40 apply for them? Alternatively, could the phrase "restrictions on the North Pacific Army" be changed to make it clear it is referring to the clauses under 7.6?
Click to expand...
I think one exemption would be sufficient to qualify for meeting the criteria for this act.
 
Wait... so, proposed new clause 1 means that the RA has to approve the restrictions. But, proposed new clause 3 says that the restrictions are automatically enforced when an exception to existing clauses 7.6.39 or 7.6.40 is triggered, which that doesn't require the RA to approve. So, the Delegate could just work around the first proposed clause by always using the NPA exception. What's the point in having the RA approving?

Or am I misreading?
 
Sil Dorsett:
Wait... so, proposed new clause 1 means that the RA has to approve the restrictions. But, proposed new clause 3 says that the restrictions are automatically enforced when an exception to existing clauses 7.6.39 or 7.6.40 is triggered, which that doesn't require the RA to approve. So, the Delegate could just work around the first proposed clause by always using the NPA exception. What's the point in having the RA approving?

Or am I misreading?
Click to expand...
Good eye. I had forgotten about the different processes for the two exemptions. I've clarified that it requires the exemption given by the RA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top