The War Bill

Siwale

Siwale

Administrator
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Siwale
Discord
siwale
The renowned TNP legal scholar, Crushing Our Enemies, recently brought to my attention how bizarrely situated war falls within our existing laws. As it currently exists, war is not even mentioned in the Constitution. The Legal Code goes on to reference war when discussing treason (Section 1.1 clauses 3 and 4), when establishing our citizenship oath (Section 6.1 clause 2), and when discussing NPA behavior while deployed (Section 7.6 clause 40). The actual section covering war is buried deep within the Legal Code (Section 6.4). This section really belongs in our Constitution. It also could use some tweaking. I therefore propose the following:

The War Bill:
1. Section 6.4 of the Legal Code shall be struck null and void.

2. Article 3 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may propose a declaration of war on foreign powers to the Regional Assembly. If it is approved by a two-thirds majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

3. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.
Click to expand...

Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may propose a declaration of war on foreign powers to the Regional Assembly. If it is approved by a two-thirds majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4.5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5.6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6.7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7.8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8.9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9.10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11.12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12.13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 6.4: War
23. A region or organization "at war" with TNP is one which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by a three-fifths majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
24. War does not constitute actions taken by or against any army of the North Pacific abroad unless the conflict meets the conditions above.
25. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws, or other surrender terms or similar are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

The War Bill:
1. Section 6.4 of the Legal Code shall be struck null and void.

2. Article 3 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
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.
5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

3. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.
Click to expand...

Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
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.
4.5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5.6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6.7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7.8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8.9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9.10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11.12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12.13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 6.4: War
23. A region or organization "at war" with TNP is one which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by a three-fifths majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
24. War does not constitute actions taken by or against any army of the North Pacific abroad unless the conflict meets the conditions above.
25. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws, or other surrender terms or similar are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

The War Bill:
1. Section 6.4 of the Legal Code shall be struck null and void.

2. Article 3 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
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 two-thirds majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

3. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.
Click to expand...

Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
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 two-thirds majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4.5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5.6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6.7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7.8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8.9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9.10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.11. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11.12. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12.13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 6.4: War
23. A region or organization "at war" with TNP is one which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by a three-fifths majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
24. War does not constitute actions taken by or against any army of the North Pacific abroad unless the conflict meets the conditions above.
25. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty is recognized by the Regional Assembly per existing laws, or other surrender terms or similar are recognized by a simple majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This looks sensible enough on a first reading. I am curious why this shouldn’t have the two-thirds requirement that treaties do though.
 
Hulldom:
This looks sensible enough on a first reading. I am curious why this shouldn’t have the two-thirds requirement that treaties do though.
Click to expand...
I copied over the old numbers from our existing laws. I have no issue with making the change to two-thirds if that's what the majority wants.
 
Last edited:
At the moment the law allows for a state of war to exist as a result of another region’s declaration or acts (if the Assembly deems them to have done so), the change would remove that. Obviously, a declaration of war could be made by the Delegate and approved in response to another region’s declaration or acts, so it may not make too much of a practical difference but I did want to ask whether there is a particular reason for the removal.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
At the moment the law allows for a state of war to exist as a result of another region’s declaration or acts (if the Assembly deems them to have done so), the change would remove that. Obviously, a declaration of war could be made by the Delegate and approved in response to another region’s declaration or acts, so it may not make too much of a practical difference but I did want to ask whether there is a particular reason for the removal.
Click to expand...
The change more closely mirrors our procedures for treaties. Given that a declaration of war is basically an "anti-treaty", if you will, this change seemed appropriate.

Hulldom:
I am curious why this shouldn’t have the two-thirds requirement that treaties do though.
Click to expand...
I've thought more about this and have decided to increase the requirement to two-thirds majority vote. It doesn't make sense for the requirement to be lower than that of treaties. If anything, a declaration of war could arguably warrant a higher level of accountability than treaties since it criminalizes dual citizenship based on the current laws surrounding treason. I will make this change to the OP.
 
Last edited:
I was about to post on the dual citizenship thing - as well as the assorted other consequences stemming from that and the implicit degree of activity to be taken against them - and would agree with 2/3rds, and would push also for perhaps a 3/4s level.
Zyvetskistaahn:
At the moment the law allows for a state of war to exist as a result of another region’s declaration or acts (if the Assembly deems them to have done so), the change would remove that. Obviously, a declaration of war could be made by the Delegate and approved in response to another region’s declaration or acts, so it may not make too much of a practical difference but I did want to ask whether there is a particular reason for the removal.
Click to expand...
Besides what Siwale says, I would think it also preserves our options depending on how “serious” or relevant the one doing the actions is determined to be, particularly as a threat to TNP itself for instance. We don’t really need to consider any random region that makes war-like actions or declarations to actually be that level of threat in my opinion.
 
I think I would prefer that the second half of the second sentence in the new clause mirrors the old 6.4.25, since it gives the Delegate and the RA more leeway on what types of documents or motions can be recognized as ending a state of war.
 
Gorundu:
I think I would prefer that the second half of the second sentence in the new clause mirrors the old 6.4.25, since it gives the Delegate and the RA more leeway on what types of documents or motions can be recognized as ending a state of war.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. With the change proposed, the RA can simply declare the state of war is over, period. They can do so because of any of the specific reasons outlined in the old clause. When you had automatic war declarations, it made sense to have automatic triggers to end states of war. Now that the RA declares war, why wouldn't they also be the ones to undeclare it?

This bill/amendment has my full support.
 
Pallaith:
I don't understand. With the change proposed, the RA can simply declare the state of war is over, period. They can do so because of any of the specific reasons outlined in the old clause. When you had automatic war declarations, it made sense to have automatic triggers to end states of war. Now that the RA declares war, why wouldn't they also be the ones to undeclare it?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point about "automatic triggers to end states of war". Under the current law (6.4.25), only the RA can formally recognise the end to a state of war. Peace treaties or terms of surrender are simply different versions of this recognition. Under this change, which states "a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly", it suggests the RA must explicitly repeal the declaration of war. So if, for example, there is a peace treaty, then the RA would have to separately pass the peace treaty and repeal the declaration of war, instead of doing it in one go like in the current system.
 
Lord Dominator:
I was about to post on the dual citizenship thing - as well as the assorted other consequences stemming from that and the implicit degree of activity to be taken against them - and would agree with 2/3rds, and would push also for perhaps a 3/4s level.
Click to expand...
An even higher threshold was considered but the limiting factor is the two-thirds majority vote to amend the constitution. Even if we set the threshold for war declaration higher, a committed two-thirds majority could just amend the law if needed.

Gorundu:
I don't understand your point about "automatic triggers to end states of war". Under the current law (6.4.25), only the RA can formally recognise the end to a state of war. Peace treaties or terms of surrender are simply different versions of this recognition. Under this change, which states "a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly", it suggests the RA must explicitly repeal the declaration of war. So if, for example, there is a peace treaty, then the RA would have to separately pass the peace treaty and repeal the declaration of war, instead of doing it in one go like in the current system.
Click to expand...
You are correct that under current law, war ends in two ways: a formal peace treaty following existing treaty procedures or a majority vote of the RA to recognize "terms of surrender or similar" (which is an undefined term). This bill simply lets the RA end the war by majority vote for any reason and does not preclude a separate peace treaty process. This could theoretically be presented as an omnibus to the RA where if it passed by a two-thirds majority vote, the war would end and the peace treaty adopted. However, if it passed by a majority vote and failed to achieve the two-thirds threshold, the war would end but not come to terms (essentially a cease-fire).
 
Siwale:
An even higher threshold was considered but the limiting factor is the two-thirds majority vote to amend the constitution. Even if we set the threshold for war declaration higher, a committed two-thirds majority could just amend the law if needed.
Click to expand...
A reasonable point, though I would observe that hasn’t stopped us from having a higher threshold to amend the BoR than to amend the Constitution to point to a different document (in the realm of slightly nutty legal theories) :p
 
Lord Dominator:
A reasonable point, though I would observe that hasn’t stopped us from having a higher threshold to amend the BoR than to amend the Constitution to point to a different document (in the realm of slightly nutty legal theories) :p
Click to expand...
True :P. Although I would imagine a catalyst to spark such a change would be harder to generate with the BoR than it would be for war. As it stands though, I think two-thirds is sufficient.
 
Dear fellow Regional Assembly-persons of the North Pacific,

This won't be just a simple message but a powerful statement that hopefully inspires you all to do the same. Before even opening this draft of the bill, my interest was already piqued. As an avid supporter of wars in the past like war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, intervention in Libya, and many other conflicts of democratic intervention and liberation. You can call me a "War Hawk" and I won't take any offense but by good Lord above if you call me a "Dove" well you just greatly offended everything about me. There is many things to say that I support about this bill but to list a few so as not go on another tangent. The first, it ensures that our legislation is clear and direct. The second and final thing, protecting peoples inherent right to declare war on any darn fools who dare to oppose our mighty fine region.

So I do declare that I, Kastonvia, fully support this piece of legislation and commend the fine Regional Assembly-persons who are proposing it.

I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That truth being is that I fully support The War Bill.
 
I support the aims of this bill to clarify the legal procedure for declarations of war, though I do have a few comments.

Under the proposed changes, the term used for those with which war is engaged is changed from "a region or organization" to just "foreign powers". While I appreciate this adds space for more nuanced situations and adversaries, I feel it may be less clear on the exact nature of the combatants with which a declaration of war would be required within the context of NationStates. It seems more... fuzzy, but maybe that's intended. I'd appreciate some clarification on the replacement of the original phrasing.

Additionally, the proposed bill is phrased such that the Delegate can "declare war" simply "by submitting a declaration of war to the Regional Assembly", which implies war is declared upon the action of submitting the declaration alone, but since the Regional Assembly needs to confirm it after anyway, it seems redundant phrasing it such that only the Delegate can "declare war" before it is submitted and confirmed by the citizenry. I believe it would be better phrased: "The Delegate may propose a declaration of war on foreign powers to the Regional Assembly." This way the phrasing isn't up for debate, as it is the Delegate that can propose a declaration, but ultimately in the hands of the Regional Assembly, as it is worded in both the original and the proposed bill, that can put it over the line officially.

And finally, I may be asking something that is more common knowledge, but why is the threshold for repealing a state of war lower than the threshold for confirming it? Declarations into a state of war are serious foreign decisions, and I believe the significance of declaring war should be held in the same regard as ending a state of war. In situations where there may be discrepancies in communication and voter activity on either end of a war, we may find ourselves voted out of a state of war that might be, technically, still there, if the requirement for it ending is lower. Again, perhaps more clarification is needed.

Thank you.
 
Kasch:
And finally, I may be asking something that is more common knowledge, but why is the threshold for repealing a state of war lower than the threshold for confirming it? Declarations into a state of war are serious foreign decisions, and I believe the significance of declaring war should be held in the same regard as ending a state of war. In situations where there may be discrepancies in communication and voter activity on either end of a war, we may find ourselves voted out of a state of war that might be, technically, still there, if the requirement for it ending is lower. Again, perhaps more clarification is needed.
Click to expand...
I share this concern - the threshold for ending war should be the same as the one for starting it.
 
I am of the opinion that entering into a state of war is no different from entering into an alliance/treaty, so if treaties need to be approved with a 2/3rd majority, and by the ongoing discussions next door, if we want the same margin for their repeal, then the threshold for war should be no less
 
Kasch:
Under the proposed changes, the term used for those with which war is engaged is changed from "a region or organization" to just "foreign powers". While I appreciate this adds space for more nuanced situations and adversaries, I feel it may be less clear on the exact nature of the combatants with which a declaration of war would be required within the context of NationStates. It seems more... fuzzy, but maybe that's intended. I'd appreciate some clarification on the replacement of the original phrasing.
Click to expand...
This mirrors the language used when discussing treaties in Article 3, Clause 3.

Kasch:
Additionally, the proposed bill is phrased such that the Delegate can "declare war" simply "by submitting a declaration of war to the Regional Assembly", which implies war is declared upon the action of submitting the declaration alone, but since the Regional Assembly needs to confirm it after anyway, it seems redundant phrasing it such that only the Delegate can "declare war" before it is submitted and confirmed by the citizenry. I believe it would be better phrased: "The Delegate may propose a declaration of war on foreign powers to the Regional Assembly." This way the phrasing isn't up for debate, as it is the Delegate that can propose a declaration, but ultimately in the hands of the Regional Assembly, as it is worded in both the original and the proposed bill, that can put it over the line officially.
Click to expand...
I like it! Will update the OP.

Kasch:
And finally, I may be asking something that is more common knowledge, but why is the threshold for repealing a state of war lower than the threshold for confirming it? Declarations into a state of war are serious foreign decisions, and I believe the significance of declaring war should be held in the same regard as ending a state of war. In situations where there may be discrepancies in communication and voter activity on either end of a war, we may find ourselves voted out of a state of war that might be, technically, still there, if the requirement for it ending is lower. Again, perhaps more clarification is needed.
Click to expand...
Comfed:
I share this concern - the threshold for ending war should be the same as the one for starting it.
Click to expand...
Fregerson:
I am of the opinion that entering into a state of war is no different from entering into an alliance/treaty, so if treaties need to be approved with a 2/3rd majority, and by the ongoing discussions next door, if we want the same margin for their repeal, then the threshold for war should be no less
Click to expand...
The majority vote option to end wars was added to our legal code with the passage of the Peace Terms Acceptance Amendment. I envision this vote functioning mainly as a ceasefire. A peace treaty can be still be pursued which would require a two-thirds majority to pass.
 
Siwale:
I motion for a vote.
Click to expand...
Seeing a motion to vote, this bill is now in formal debate, which will end in five days. I will grant requests for a truncated formal debate period down of two days.
Hulldom:
Second.
Click to expand...
As this is is a legislative proposal, a second is not required, as set out in the Standing Procedures:
Legislative Proposal Procedure
  1. Any citizen may introduce a proposal to enact, amend or repeal laws by creating a thread in the Regional Assembly forum or Private Halls subforum.
  2. The associated text of the proposal will be contained in a single quote tag within the opening post of the proposal thread. The citizen who introduced the proposal may alter this text within the opening post at their discretion. This text shall be the official text of the bill.
  3. The citizen who introduced the proposal may call for a vote by posting "motion to vote", or a functional equivalent in the thread.
  4. During the five days after a vote is called for, the citizen who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the citizen who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin.
  5. No proposal will be scheduled for a vote that includes changes to more than one document, unless it includes the following clause or a functional equivalent:
Click to expand...
 
While I may not vote on this bill, I am opposed to it as written. I prefer the way the current legal language frames War as something that other regions start and TNP finishes, rather than the more neutral language in this bill that can be seen as normalizing TNP declaring wars of choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top