[R4R] On Treaties and Sanctions

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Response to the Events in Equilism

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?

The Constitution of The North Pacific

3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights of the Nations of The North Pacific

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Legal Code

45. 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.
46. These prohibitions may be repealed with a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
47. 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...

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

None that I am aware at the moment of redaction of the R4R.

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.

I am the Court Examiner, and I enjoy of universal standing on all judicial review cases brought upon to the court as per the Legal Code, Section 3.6; 34. There is a potential breach of the constitutionally mandated obligation of RA approval for treaties, and the Legal Code by such extent in the Diplomacy part of such.

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.

There is a potential breach of the sovereignty of the nations of The North Pacific when it comes to whether or not the action taken by the government of The North Pacific, in conjunction with other powers of Sanctions, would be considered Treaties or not.

The concept of a sanction does not exist in the current legal environment of The North Pacific. On the 10th of November 2022, however, an announcement was made by the government in which they imposed joint actions against two regions, The Black Hawkes and The Brotherhood of Malice.

The way it's written and the fact that the concept of sanctions are non-existent in TNP mean the only method of International Law existent at the moment in the region is in the form of Treaties. Which need the vote of the Regional Assembly.

The animosity between regions and the need of a speedy answer does not grant the Delegate’s government the ability to bypass the legislative methods and systems of the region. And if this figure of sanctions is indeed included in the regional legal concept of a Treaty, there has been a breach of the sovereignty of nations when imposing such actions without the endorsement of the Regional Assembly.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

I would like to point out Praetor's "The Foreign Affairs Toolbox Expansion Act", seen in the Legal Code from point 45 to 47, in which the actions taken by the government in the form of sanctions are in need of confirmation by the Regional Assembly.
See; this section of the Legal Code imposes the need of a majority of the Regional Assembly of confirmation for the following prohibitions:

• Creation of In-Game embassies and Forum Embassies
• The host of Cultural Events
• Other formal collaborations with the region.

The Response in questions imposes the following "sanctions" against the regions, among others:

• Participation in events either hosted by the regions, or by members of such
• Participation in coalitions or others led by members of such regions
• Participation in any media of the regions "sanctioned"

There is a clear correlation and contradiction between the internal law and the international law that this action attempts to take.

The court has received the filing and are considering the matter.

Dreadton:

The court has received the filing and are considering the matter.

Click to expand...

My apologies, justice, but what does this mean exactly? Is the court considering the R4R? Or considering whether or not to accept the filing? I am asking because I am unsure if the court would accept briefs on this matter.

St George:

My apologies, justice, but what does this mean exactly? Is the court considering the R4R? Or considering whether or not to accept the filing? I am asking because I am unsure if the court would accept briefs on this matter.

Click to expand...

The court is discussing if we should accept the R4R

The court accepts this Request for Review.

I will be Moderating Justice on this matter. The Briefing period is now open and will last five days. Due to the holidays in the US, the court will consider extending the briefing period if requested.

In occordance with the Court Procedures, the court identifies the Delegate @Pallaith as the respondant in this matter. The court request a brief from the Delegate or his designee.


The briefing period will close on (time=1669138441)

The Briefing Period will close on (time=1669397641)

I will be submitting a brief. However, at this time I would request the Court have @Lord Dominator recuse himself from consideration of this matter, as he is personally impacted by the sanctions he would now be asked to constitutionally evaluate.

Pallaith:

I will be submitting a brief. However, at this time I would request the Court have @Lord Dominator recuse himself from consideration of this matter, as he is personally impacted by the sanctions he would now be asked to constitutionally evaluate.

Click to expand...

As I hold no rank in TBH (and am not on their server) and only have the equivalent of a visitor masking on Malice’s server sufficient to chat in their quasi-public channels and play on their Minecraft server I was not under the impression I would be directly affected by said sanctions, and thus did not pre-emptively recuse. If it is the government’s present position that such activity is covered, then I will so recuse.

Lord Dominator:

As I hold no rank in TBH (and am not on their server) and only have the equivalent of a visitor masking on Malice’s server sufficient to chat in their quasi-public channels and play on their Minecraft server I was not under the impression I would be directly affected by said sanctions, and thus did not pre-emptively recuse. If it is the government’s present position that such activity is covered, then I will so recuse.

Click to expand...

The Justice is correct then that the sanctions would not impact him as far as his membership in the organizations. However, he is still obviously biased and personally invested in the outcome and we would continue to insist he recuse himself.

Pallaith:

The Justice is correct then that the sanctions would not impact him as far as his membership in the organizations. However, he is still obviously biased and personally invested in the outcome and we would continue to insist he recuse himself.

Click to expand...

I will do so then.

A Brief in Support of the Challenged Action
Submitted by Pallaith, in his capacity as Delegate of The North Pacific and respondent

As the primary author of these sanctions, and someone who was at the table when they were discussed among the regions of the Modern Gameplay Compact (MGC), I was quite cognizant of the laws of TNP when crafting them. I appreciate the Court Examiner’s concern and understand why some may feel these robust and sweeping sanctions may run afoul of the law. Those people would be mistaken, however. I will speak generally to why these sanctions are fully consistent with the law, before addressing the Court Examiner’s argument specifically.

It is important to first consider the nature of the sanctions – that is, the extent to which they are legally binding. Simply put, they are not. The government of The North Pacific, at my direction, has agreed to these sanctions and is committed to upholding them. But our potential failure to execute these sanctions comes with no penalty, no violation of my oath, no consequence within The North Pacific. Clearly there would be diplomatic consequences, but as far as the law, they do not bind my government any more than our collection of executive directives, or perhaps more relevant to this case, the WA voting policy, which are subject to change at my direction. A different delegate may decide to operate differently, and set the sanctions aside, just as they may dismantle our WA policy and unilaterally vote on every WA proposal, or they may push our military operations in one direction or another. Perhaps they will bar joint ops with a particular organization, as has happened many times over the years. It is certainly my prerogative, and fully within my authority as the executive, to direct how our WA and military policy will be conducted. It is fully within my authority to invite or disinvite any player to the events that we host. To suggest otherwise would turn our understanding of the executive on its head.

Setting all of that aside, these sanctions are largely redundant. The Brotherhood of Malice is already sanctioned by TNP by virtue of our diplomatic restrictions (which, it must be stressed, are not distinguishable from what is at issue here – that is, sanctions), as they were exempted from our military restrictions, and this law automatically applies diplomatic restrictions when military restrictions are imposed. The diplomatic restrictions list specific things that the MGC sanctions do not, but importantly, they refer to “other formal collaborations,” a category that I would argue easily contemplates the specific sanctions I signed on to with the other MGC regions in sections 1 and 2. It is true that no TNP-specific diplomatic restrictions have been applied to The Black Hawks either by RA vote or by virtue of military exemptions having been imposed. But the sanctions that are applied to TBH are limited to the section on WA activity and two military-based sanctions, which are, as has already been established, firmly within the delegate’s purview.

In this particular case, the Court Examiner asserts in their brief that a potential breach of sovereignty exists because the sanctions can only be interpreted as a treaty due to there not being any concept of sanctions in our current legal system. Even if that were true – and it clearly is not, given the fact our law contemplates diplomatic restrictions, something the Court Examiner is well aware of considering even they invoked them shortly after this argument – that does not preclude the government from engaging in sanctions. The fact that sanctions may not exist in our legal environment would not mean they cannot exist, or that they can only exist if the law explicitly speaks about them. This Court has previously held that the law includes "implicit provisions," and following that logic, we can understand that the delegate has a broad array of options and decision making capability that need not be spelled out as an exhaustive list in the legal code. We need not pursue that line of thinking very far, however, because, again, the law does contemplate sanctions. But to then assert that we must consider the question of treaties as the only international law, aside from being false as already argued, simply makes no sense. Treaties bind TNP government until they are repealed, and they obviously involve the participation of the Regional Assembly. The agreement with the MGC is purely about how to engage the government when it comes to foreign affairs, and is a pledge my government has made for how to deal with these organizations. What more can be said on the question of treaties – these sanctions are not a treaty so contemplating whether this agreement is consistent with the law on treaties is wholly unnecessary and out of place.

The Court Examiner further asserts that this process bypassed the legislative side of our region’s government, and that this is the crux of the alleged breach in sovereignty. The delegate does not need to run all their decisions by the RA, and in fact can take action and make decisions completely independent of the RA. This is especially the case when the actions taken do not involve legislative procedures at all under the law. At the risk of repeating myself, these sanctions do not require any action or input from the RA. While the RA is empowered to pass whatever resolution it sees fit, or modify the law to constrain the actions of the delegate, these actions did not require their sign off. The ultimate sign off of these particular actions was given when I was elected delegate. The ultimate veto, in lieu of any law tailored to respond to any of these actions, is the recall. I did not approach the RA to codify permanent cultural restrictions on BoM, but I wouldn’t have needed to anyway – this was done the moment the RA passed military restriction exemptions on BoM. The only reason invoking a treaty helps in this case, is that like a treaty, such diplomatic prohibitions would have been ongoing and binding on all future governments, not just mine. The sanctions with MGC only survive as long as a delegate is willing to let them, and even the delegate who agreed to them need not follow them as there are no legal consequences for doing so.

The Court must find, then, that these sanctions are not a treaty (simple enough to do as they clearly are not); and that sanctions more generally need not take the form of the legal code’s diplomatic restrictions. I have not committed the region to a course that only the RA could have chosen or can take us away from. I have not bound myself or the region by any red tape, only my word and my authority that exists for the duration of my term of office. The RA is not the only body that can impose sanctions, but they are the only one that can indefinitely impose them. And to the extent the agreement with the MGC imposed sanctions, they were entirely within my existing authority as delegate, or simply doubled down on what the law already proscribed. There is nothing to be done except for the Court to clearly articulate and affirm these actions are consistent with what the executive government is already empowered to do. There is no contradiction, or improper procedure. I thank the Court for its time.

Brief from Comfed On the Delegate's Power to Regulate the Executive Branch

To the Court of The North Pacific,

I hereby submit this brief in support of the legality of the actions of Delegate Pallaith in "Response to the Events in Equilism".

On the Power of the Delegate to Impose the Sanctions
The petitioner alleges that the sanctions are an unconstitutional attempt by the Delegate to subvert the typical process of ratifying treaties and imposing diplomatic restrictions on the government of The North Pacific. This is a claim which largely ignores the Delegate's right to discretion in the way their government acts and does not act. The sanctions are essentially just that: policy by the Delegate on the way the executive branch of government is to act. The Delegate is fully within their right to determine what the executive departments are to do so long as such actions are compliant with the law. An example of such a policy is Delegate Madjack's policy of the North Pacific Army (NPA) ceasing to engage in virtually any raiding activities. Such a policy is obviously within the Delegate's prerogative to make, and the sanctions applied here are exactly these sorts of policies. It is worth saying, however, that such policies to not carry force of law in The North Pacific. Neither the Delegate nor any citizen is legally bound by these sanctions despite their language. Maintaining these sanctions is fully up to the Delegate in office, both to maintain and enforce. To quote the previously cited Delegate, "Anything my administration does can be undone by the next", and this clearly applies here. The Delegate is fully within their rights to direct their government according to the policies outlined in the sanctions, but they are not bound to uphold the sanctions and the sanctions cannot be enforced by the Court.

In terms of the specifics of the sanctions, it becomes even more clear how they are at the Delegate's prerogative. Parts 1 and 2 of the sanctions, which I outline at once because they are both different approaches of the same sanctions, list several prohibitions on cooperation between the Modern Gameplay Pact (MGP) signatories and The Brotherhood of Malice (and to a lesser extent, the Black Hawks). The specific prohibitions are a prohibition on official participation of the MPG regions with cultural events, coalitions or alliances, platforming in official state media, and participating in mutual military ops which are not both strictly anti-fascist and having members of the Brotherhood of Malice or the Black Hawks in command positions. All of these are things which are generally purely at the Delegate's determination. Cultural events, participation in coalitions, state media, and the NPA are all clearly within the Delegate's government. Part 3 of the sanctions, which involve World Assembly cooperation, are even more obviously at the Delegate's discretion both due to the fact that WA policy is set with the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs and the Delegate's position as World Assembly Delegate. In sum, none of the restrictions apply to anything which is outside of the Delegate's government and thus the Delegate is fully within their rights to regulate them. The fact that there exist ways to create legally binding rules for the Delegate to follow in interregional diplomacy does not preclude an ability for the Delegate to set their own policy in regards to foreign affairs. The sanctions could come in the form of informal statements of policy communicated in private to individual Ministers and in the eyes of the law they would be equivalent to the sanctions being challenged.

On the Alleged Breach of Sovereignty and Constitutional Rights of the Nations of the North Pacific by the Sanctions
The petitioner further alleges that the sanctions violate article 2 of the Bill of Rights. As previously established, obviously any sanction imposed unilaterally by the Delegate on nations of The North Pacific would constitute an attempt to legislate from the executive. Neither the Delegate, nor any single individual in The North Pacific, possesses such royal power; at most the Delegate can put forward treaties, and these are subject to Regional Assembly ratification. Additionally, and more importantly for this section of the brief, any laws which violated the previously quoted constitutional statute would be unconstitutional and it would be the duty of the court to invalidate them. However, critically, none of the sanctions impose any restrictions on nations of The North Pacific; as previously asserted in the first part of this brief, the restrictions are only orders from the Delegate on the way the Delegate's government is to act. Such orders are completely within the Delegate's jurisdiction, although such policy is (as previously asserted) only binding insofar as the Delegate is willing to enforce them on their own government; the Court could not enforce these sanctions because they do not hold the force of law.

Specific details about how each section of the sanctions not only does not violate the Bill of Rights but also does not even impose any restrictions on nations of The North Pacific will now be elaborated. Parts 1 and 2 of the sanctions which I have already detailed only impose restrictions on the government's absolute freedom to act, and such restrictions are again only applicable insofar as the Delegate of the day is willing to uphold them. In regards to clause (c) of parts 1 and 2, the restrictions on "platforming" in media are carefully worded to ensure that only media produced by MGP signatories (i.e. their governments) is prohibited from platforming members of the Brotherhood of Malice. Part 3 does the same thing, only imposing restrictions on the Delegate's vote and approval on World Assembly proposals and resolutions.

I thank the Court for considering my admittedly long-winded brief. Vivanco is noble in ensuring that the rule of law is respected in The North Pacific, and I do not believe that the sanctions subvert this in any way as they are not more than the Delegate regulating in a more formal way the activities of their own government and their own bureaucracy.

With @Lord Dominator recusing themselves from this case, I appoint @Kronos Temporary Hearing Officer for this case.

The court thanks those who have submitted briefs, the court does have some follow up questions that have not be addressed so far. We request further briefing on the following:

In the Delegates announcement, followup posting, and here in this review; the Delegate has stated that residents/citizens of TNP are impacted by these sanctions.
1. Does the Delegate have the authority to bar residents in TNP, who may hold residency in other regions that are in conflict with TNP, from participating in TNP Government hosted/co-hosted events?

We also have a direct question for the Delegate @Pallaith / @Hulldom .

1. How does the Delegate intend to enforce these sanctions on members of TNP?

The briefing period will be extended until Friday to give all parties time to respond.

Dreadton:

The court thanks those who have submitted briefs, the court does have some follow up questions that have not be addressed so far. We request further briefing on the following:

In the Delegates announcement, followup posting, and here in this review; the Delegate has stated that residents/citizens of TNP are impacted by these sanctions.
1. Does the Delegate have the authority to bar residents in TNP, who may hold residency in other regions that are in conflict with TNP, from participating in TNP Government hosted/co-hosted events?

We also have a direct question for the Delegate @Pallaith / @Hulldom .

1. How does the Delegate intend to enforce these sanctions on members of TNP?

The briefing period will be extended until Friday to give all parties time to respond.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the extension and will be happy to provide the additional briefing.

In answer to the Court’s direct question, I believe enforcement is self-evident in the case of the WA and military sanctions, so my answer will be concerned with the other sanctions.

Members of TNP who are members of the sanctioned regions will not be permitted to enter or participate events hosted by fellow signatories, something that they are fully within the rights to insist upon regardless. When it comes to events we host, the same will apply. Removal from the event Discord server, declining any participation in a radio show, not employing them as a representative for TNP to any group formed for purposes of participating in a game event. They would not be permitted to be a member of our N-Day faction.

Admittedly, enforcing their lack of participation in an event hosted by one of the sanctioned regions will prove to be more difficult. I believe this too is self-evident: if we do not have the mechanical ability to remove such people from one of these events, and the hosts do not wish to remove them, it would be impossible for me to enforce the sanction. I have no means to penalize them for violating these particular sanctions, either in our law or in these sanctions themselves. I am also not asserting that I have such an ability. We would decline invitations to attend any events, be part of any groups, or places that platform such players, even if they are members of TNP, and we would not promote or advertise such things and would discourage our members from participating. But that’s the extent of what we could do.

The Court has requested further elaboration regarding the Delegate’s authority to bar TNP residents from TNP-hosted events, or events involving TNP and other regions hosting together, if those residents are also residents of hostile regions/groups. I do note that clause 2 of the Bill of Rights was cited in the initial request for review, though in my original brief I saw no need to address it as the initial argument did not address why that was cited. I can only go off of what the clause actually says in responding in this additional brief, as I believe addressing its presence will relate to the question the Court has asked.

Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights guarantees free speech rights to all TNP residents, among other things, but this guarantee seems to me to be the only relevant one in this case. Obviously, freedom of religion and press are not applicable, and freedom of assembly is specifically related to assemblies started by the residents themselves, not regional events hosted by the government. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the sanctions constitute the government acting in the best interests of the region – I maintain that they are in the region’s best interests – but I suspect this too is not why this clause was cited, especially as no argument remotely considering this point was brought forward. Simply put then, the question seems to be twofold: do the free speech rights in this region include attending government-hosted events, or events TNP co-hosts with others? And is membership or residency in another place hostile to TNP protected by this freedom?

I would argue that free speech does not extend to being permitted to attend government hosted events. There is no constitutional right to participation in any cultural or game event, and the reason for their exclusion, membership in a hostile organization or region, is an affiliation-based reason for exclusion, something this Court found to be permissible in its decision On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act. The residents remain free to be part of these hostile groups and suffer no legal consequences for it, but, as the Court noted in On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch, freedom of speech does not guarantee consequence free speech. Collaborative events or large cultural celebrations that draw in players from other regions, especially ones that involve sharing hosting duties with other regions, will naturally have a foreign policy dimension. The Court has observed the significance of this, including in On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch. Especially where residents wear multiple hats and may be part of a hostile group, their presence may have a negative impact on the region’s foreign relations. As the host of the event and the authority seeing it through, the Delegate naturally is empowered to regulate attendance as needed. As we saw in On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act, the Court recognized that even if some nations were rejected for citizenship while most were not, no one was singled out for a unique cause, but was systematically rejected by the same standard and the same process. In other words, they were treated equally in that they were subjected to the exact same scrutiny and the result of their evaluation leading to their rejection was the same for all people in their situation. So it is with the sanctions and who they impact.

I would finally note that one aspect of the Court’s decision in On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act is that even though the Delegate can exclude people from the executive staff, they essentially need to have a good reason for doing so. Even though membership in the executive staff is not constitutionally protected or codified in law, the Delegate is expected not to be capricious and arbitrary in excluding residents from participating in it, given its significant role in the region’s culture and activity. It is easy to see how participation in a government-hosted event can fall into the same box. The government has an interest in crafting policy that advances the region’s interests, is consistent with its values, and can help shape the gamestate in a way that is beneficial to TNP and its goals in the wide game world. Access to these events is one way to leave a mark in the game and to encourage policy and actions that will further advance TNP’s agenda. That is the logic underpinning sanctions: creating consequences for behavior and decisions that counter TNP’s goals, or are detrimental to its values and interests, and creating incentive for common ground and common cause. The region’s cultural events and game-related organizing are another tool in the Delegate’s toolbox, and have a crucial role in the government’s overall strategy.

In short, the Delegate can do this utilizing the same discretion the Court has previously recognized, and that was outlined in my earlier brief. There is no conflict with the Bill of Rights, and there is no protected right that is being violated by excluding residents from these events. I thank the Court for its time and consideration.

A brief on the legality of the government's policy in relation to Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights
Submitted by Gorundu in his capacity as a private citizen of The North Pacific

In this brief I will be referencing the second-to-last paragraph in the Delegate's latest brief, and so I would like to first note that I believe an error was made in that paragraph where the Delegate incorrectly referenced the Court's decision On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act, instead of the decision On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch. The paragraph subsequently discusses matters which are clearly based on the latter decision rather than the former.

With the clarification made, I would firstly like to concur with the Delegate's statement in that paragraph that "it is easy to see how participation in a government-hosted event can fall into the same box". The Court, in their previous decision, noted that "if someone were barred from participating in any part of the executive staff, their ability to participate fully in the region and to make use of the rights and freedoms they are afforded would be curtailed". The same would apply to government-hosted events, which are organised by the government specifically to engage members of the region, facilitating interaction between members and sometimes with the additional purpose of facilitating interaction with members of other regions. Thus, it is an essential aspect of an individual's ability to participate fully in the region.

However, he also stated that the Court's decision stipulated that "even though the Delegate can exclude people from the executive staff, they essentially need to have a good reason for doing so" and that "the Delegate is expected not to be capricious and arbitrary in excluding residents from participating in [the executive staff], given its significant role in the region’s culture and activity". I believe his statements were not a completely accurate reflection of the Court's decision. The Court stated that, when the Delegate is making determinations on whether an individual should be accepted to the executive staff, "such determinations should be based on some sort of misconduct by the barred individual (not on personal disagreements, prior inactivity, or other more mundane issues) and should be proportional to the misconduct that occurred". From these statements, it is clear that not only does the Delegate need a good reason for their decision and not be arbitrary or capricious in their decision-making, but also that any such decision should be made based on individual misconduct. It is difficult to see that simple membership in a organisation, no matter its hostility towards The North Pacific, could constitute some kind of misconduct. Being a member of an organisation hostile towards The North Pacific does not necessarily mean that the individual is themselves hostile towards The North Pacific, and even if that were the case, the individual might not have taken any actions or engaged in any speech to specifically harm The North Pacific's interests. No misconduct could arise here if the individual has not done anything with the intention to harm The North Pacific's interests. To be clear, individuals in hostile foreign organisations are likely to engage in conduct intended to harm The North Pacific's interests, but membership of these organisations alone is not evidence of such conduct.

The Delegate also referenced in his brief a part of the Court's decision that noted free speech is not consequence-free speech, and argued that, in a similar vein, being excluded from regional events is simply a consequence stemming from an affiliation with hostile foreign groups. However, this section of the Court's decision solely concerned the freedom of speech, as evidenced by the subtitle of the section, "On the Freedom of Speech Abroad", and the examples used in the section. Even if this principle can be applied to other rights and freedoms, it is clear that this should not impair an individual's exercise of their other rights and freedoms, as evidenced by the Court's aforementioned mandate that the Delegate should make determinations only based on misconduct when choosing to exclude residents from certain central facets of life in the region.

Furthermore, I believe the Court erred in its decision On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act, insofar as it claimed neither "affiliation" nor "action" are rights or freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Affiliation with a group or ideology clearly forms part of a nation's right to assemble under Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights, and engaging in the promotion of a group or ideology is clearly a form of speech and thus protect under the right to free speech in the same clause. This part of the ruling should be overturned. This does not mean I believe the Reject Fascism Act should have been ruled unconstitutional, but rather that the Court should have recognised, yet again, that free speech is not consequence-free, as well as considering other factors at play similar to those raised in the Court's subsequent decision On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board. On the matter currently at hand in this case, the Court could also take into account other factors while adhering to the principles it set out in its decision On the Delegate’s Authority to Staff the Executive Branch.

To summarise the arguments made in this brief, if the Delegate's ability to determine participation in government-hosted events should be subject to the same restrictions to their ability to determine staffing of the executive branch, then a blanket ban on residents of The North Pacific who are also members of foreign organisations (as the government imposed in Part 1, Sections (a) and (d), of its sanctions) would fall afoul of those limits. In addition, the Court's decision On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act should be partially overturned.

I thank the members of the Court for their consideration of this case and my submission.

The period for submitting briefs is now closed. The court will deliberate on this matter.

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here, here, and here by @Pallaith.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Comfed.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Gorundu.

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

Article 1. Bill of Rights
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 2. The Regional Assembly
1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific.

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed 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.

Article 6. General Provisions
17. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

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

Section 7.7: Diplomacy
45. 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.
46. These prohibitions may be repealed with a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
47. 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...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of Modern Gameplay Compact:

Section III - Mutual Defense
5. In addition to military assistance in case of military attacks, signatories are strongly encouraged to assist in appropriate retaliation against the hostile party, through the World Assembly, other military actions, diplomatic sanctions, or whatever course of action is agreed upon by the signatories.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act :

The Court finds that no conflict exists between these because the R.F.B. does not target the speech of those applying for citizenship. The R.F.B. specifically targets applicants for their affiliation with a group (Fascists) and upon the affirmative action of promoting said group. The bill that is now Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 6 in no way bars or punishes the ability of people to speak about anything only requiring a rejection for those who "identifies as" (affiliation) or "engages in the promotion" (action) neither of which are protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights contains 3 freedom of “speech”, “press” and “expression of religion” none of which protect the above, Clause 9 only refers to “fair and equal treatment and protection” in relation to the actions of members of the government, a law can not violate Clause 9 because it only guarantees that the government will apply the laws to any “nations of The North Pacific” in an “equal and fair” manner, it would only be a violation of Clause 9 to selectively enforce the laws as they are written.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

Standing​

Petitioner @Vivanco is duly appointed Court Examiner in accordance with Section 3.6 of the legal code. They have universal standing in all cases of Judicial Review. As such the petitioner has standing.

On Regional Interest​

The petitioner brings forth an act of the Executive that binds the region in a course of action and has application and impact on the Residents of the Region. The case brings forth several valid legal questions:
1. Does the action taken by the Delegate meet the requirements to be considered a treaty under the law?
2. Are the actions taken by the Delegate against residents of TNP via this action legal under the law?

The matter is of regional Interest, presenting valid legal questions that require the Court's intervention.

Statement of Facts​

Shortly after the events in Equilism, the Delegate of the North Pacific released a joint statement with the heads of several other regions. This statement announced sanctions against members of two regions, the Brotherhood of Malice and the Black Hawks. It also applied to any resident of the North Pacific who may have ties to, residency in, or a history with the proscribed regions. These sanctions bars the signatories from participating in military operations and cultural events or hosting members of the proscribed regions. It also binds the signatories to oppose any World Assembly resolutions from members of the proscribed regions. The Delegate made clear that these sanctions applied to residents of the North Pacific who have ties with the two regions during regional discussion of the matter.

On the Definition of Treaty​

Before the Court can make a determination on the matter before us, we must determine what a treaty is. The Constitution offers us some limited information in Article 3, Section 3, “The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers or propose the repeal of existing treaties.” This establishes a treaty as an agreement between the North Pacific and a foreign power. Taken in a plain reading, this would mean any agreement between the North Pacific and any foreign power is a treaty and must be voted on by the Regional Assembly. Such an interpretation would be impractical and absurd. Absent further clarification in the Constitution or the Legal Code from the Regional Assembly, the Court must turn to the intent and historical application of the clause.

Looking to the intent of the clause, the Court turns to the discussion in the Regional Assembly on the adoption of the current Constitution in 2015 and the subsequent amendment in 2022 and finds little guidance. The interpretation of and application of the treaty clause was apparently well established in previous iteration of the regions laws, and the only real question the Assembly had was on if a Treaty should be repealed with or without initiation by the sitting Delegate. Therefore the Court dove into the historical records to clarify this matter.

As far back as the 2005 Constitution, treaties were initiated by the sitting executive authority and addressed the diplomatic and military relationships with other regions. Article 2, Section 4, of the 2005 Constitution (https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630027/#post-83300) and TNP Law 9 (https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630028/#post-83315) formulated treaties as diplomatic, military, or both. From the earliest treaties (the Lion Star Pact https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630030/#post-83322) to the treaties used today, there is a common formula that is used.

1. A recognition between the regions of the lawful governments.
2. Statements on the terms of the treaty.
3. Signed by the Executive Authority of each region.
4. Formal adoption by the legal methods of signatories.

The Court notes that over time, embassy agreements moved from the formal treaty process to a “handshake” agreement and a formal policy from the executive.

The Court generally defines a treaty, until such time the Regional Assembly elects to formulate a definition, as the following:

A treaty is an agreement signed, ratified, or adhered to between the North Pacific and one or more foreign sovereigns, that will remain in effect indefinitely until either formally revoked or irreparable breached, and which outlines binding obligations and responsibilities of the signatories.

On the Definition of Sanctions​

Sanctions are not called out by name within the law, but the Court notes the intent behind Section 7.7 of the Legal Code. Within the Regional Assembly debate on this law, it is clear to the court that this established a formal legal procedure to indefinitely impose sanctions on regions hostile to the North Pacific. The law contemplates two forms of sanctions. The first is an informal sanction that can be revoked at any time by the Delegate. The second being a formal sanction, which requires Regional Assembly approval to impose or remove. The law further states that sanctions are automatically imposed upon regions that are exempt by the Regional Assembly from use of force restrictions by the North Pacific Army. After reviewing the law, debate, and the submitted briefs in this review, it is clear that sanctions are a punitive measure taken by the executive against a foreign region, that may or may not be done in a formal manner.

With these terms in mind, the Court turns to the first matter at hand.

On the Delegate’s statement on the events in Equilism​

Since all laws and government policy are subservient to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 & Constitution, Article 6, Section 17), the Court begins its analysis of the matter by determining if the statement meets the criteria of a treaty.

We evaluate the first condition of the treaty process which is the recognition between lawful governments. The Court finds that there is an abundance of evidence to support this. First, the existing treaty known as the Modern Gameplay Compact, establishes recognition of the signatories as the lawful governments of their respective regions. The Delegate, in their brief, further supports this, “(...) someone who was at the table when they were discussed among the regions of the Modern Gameplay Compact (MGC) (...)” Even if no treaty exists, the Court finds that there is mutual recognition between the government of the North Pacific and the respective signatories of the statement. It is clear from the statement and from the Delegates brief that the government has recognized the signatories on the international and internal political stage.

The second part is the statement on the terms of the treaty and here the Statement continues to meet the standards set above. The terms of the statement bar the signatories from conducting military operations, cultural events, and supporting WA proposals authored by the proscribed regions and peoples. However, there are no penalties for non-compliance with the statement outside of conflict with the original Modern Gameplay Compact Treaty.

The third part is the matter which is before us. If this is a treaty, then ratification from the Regional Assembly is required.
The Delegate, in their brief, posited that the sanctions are a policy that is not binding upon The North Pacific outside the Delegate’s right to direct the Executive. Newly elected Delegates can revoke policies instituted by their predecessors, and the Delegate argues that this is true for the sanctions. Should the Delegate elect to join or issue sanctions in partnership with other signatories, and not have it fall under the requirements of a treaty, the Delegate should clearly state within the text of the sanctions that they are non-binding on the government and can be revoked at any time.

Holding​

For the reasons outlined above, the Court would hold that if this Statement was a stand alone statement it would be considered a treaty under our laws. The Statement establishes an agreement between the North Pacific and foreign sovereigns, it has a statement of terms, and it is held as a responsibility between regions. Nominally, this would require the Regional Assembly to hold a vote on ratification of this course of action. But this statement does not stand alone, although it was not briefed, the Modern Gameplay Compact is a ratified treaty that is factorable in this matter. Specifically, these sanctions are already approved and incorporated by Section 3, Subsection 5 of the treaty.

“5. In addition to military assistance in case of military attacks, signatories are strongly encouraged to assist in appropriate retaliation against the hostile party, through the World Assembly, other military actions, diplomatic sanctions, or whatever course of action is agreed upon by the signatories.”

The Delegate outlined in the original statement that all signatories debated and agreed to the sanctions listed in the Statement. As such it is proper to judge it under the above cited clause. It is held by this court that the Delegate’s statement is enforcement of Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Modern Gameplay Compact and does not require further ratification from the Regional Assembly. The Statement in question is an exercise of the cited clause by the Delegate.

On the Delegate’s Ability to Sanction Residents of the North Pacific​

The second issue before us is the Delegates' use of sanctions on residents of the North Pacific due to their association, past or present, with the regions outlined in the statement. These sanctions prevent the resident from participating in the North Pacific military operations, attending government cultural events, being hosted or part of the North Pacific Media shows, and hold the Government to actively work against any World Assembly proposal presented by the resident. During the discussion of the statement and the subsequent brief, the Delegate cites prior court rulings and the Reject Fascism Law to support his decision to sanction residents of the North Pacific.
When a member of government establishes an extrajudicial punishment upon a resident of a region, no matter the context, without prior notice, due process, or recourse, the Court must examine the actions under the strictest of scrutiny. It is the duty of all members of government to ensure the rights of the residents are protected to the fullest extent possible.

On the Right of Free Speech, Association, and Assembly​

Many speech acts receive no protection under the residents right to Free Speech: Perjury, Treason, Espionage are not considered protected speech and such exclusions are so uncontroversial as they often go unlitigated. Others are absolutely protected that any attempt to interfere with them will result with the utmost hostility from the Courts and residents of the region: the right to criticise the Government, the right in political beliefs, World Assembly membership are all protected. The Court has been called to evaluate when speech can be restricted or compelled: Oath taking, Government Disclosures, Promoting Fascism, and violating community standards have all been upheld as various restrictions on speech. With the petition before the Court, we must evaluate the intersection of the Executives authority on Foreign Affairs, its ability to conduct regional and inter-regional events, the citizens right to Free Speech, Assembly, and revisit the Court's ruling on the Right of Association.

When evaluating this matter, the Court looked at its ruling On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act. The Court finds that part of the reasoning in that case is not in line with the Bill of Rights and must strike parts of it down. The right of association is a part of both the right of Assembly and the right of Free Speech. Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedom of Speech and Assembly. It is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, religious or cultural matters, and the executive action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the strictest scrutiny. This does not mean the right to associate is absolute. How can it be when the rights in which it relies on to exist are not absolute?
The right to associate, speech, and assembly can be restricted if certain conditions are met and it is through these restrictions that the Reject Fascism Bill survives. When evaluating and applying these conditions, all deference must be given to the rights of the individual over the rights of the government.

1. Is there a compelling government interest?
2. Is this the least restrictive means to achieve the government interest?
3. Is there prior notice to the individual?
4. Is there a means for due process and recourse?

The Reject Fascism Act has a compelling government interest. It seeks to prevent proponents of an ideology that promotes hate and harm from having a fertile field to advance its ideology. It is the least restrictive means to achieve this interest as it prevents only the acceptance of citizenship, but not from regional interactions. Individuals are given notice that their promotion of Fascism would bar them from citizenship. Most importantly, a person whom this law is used against is granted due process and recourse through the Vice Delegate appeal process and via the Court. For these reasons, the Reject Fascism Act survives the challenge under the various provisions of the Bill of Rights.

The sanctions issued by the Delegate against residents of the North Pacific do not survive evaluation under the Bill of Rights. Residents are not given prior notice. The Bill of Rights, Section 6 holds that “No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code.” These sanctions impose a crime, the association with the Brotherhood of Malice and/or the Black Hawks, and a punishment, barred from participation in regional events and instant hostilities against any World Assembly proposal they may present. The conditions required to trigger these provisions, apart from just an association, are not clear. There is no mention of how far back and how much association is needed to trigger these provisions. Does it apply to a person who was active within these regions 3 years ago? Does posting on the regional message board of those regions constitute an association? What about being an Ambassador to one or more of those regions? There is nothing in the sanctions that gives notice to the residents of what actions are being punished except a vague notion of association. Residents are not aware of what level association triggers these sanctions until the Delegate elections to bar them from an event, and only if the Delegate elects to tell them the reason.

The sanctions further fail on granting Due Process and recourse for those affected. There is no process spelled out, such as a trial or appeal to the Court, that an affected party can challenge the determination that they are subjected to these sanctions nor is there an length of time they will be subjected to it. As noted previously, even the Reject Fascism Act has a process in which an affected party can challenge the determination that they are subjected to the act. What the Delegate has done here is created the North Pacific equivalent of a No Fly List. A list which the only real way to find out if you are subjected to it is when it's applied to you, a list in which you can not challenge the process or the fact you are on it, and a list you can not be removed from.

The Court must address, in its ruling, that parts of the sanctions are covered by the explicit and inherent power of the Delegate. The Delegate is the de-facto commander of the North Pacific Army, the Delegate and their designee are charged with maintaining an active and well trained military. To that extent, the Delegate can elect to exclude residents from entering and participating in the military who do not meet the standards set by the executive. This can include activities within regions that are in conflict. The Delegate’s application and creation of their World Assembly policy is one that has grown through tradition, more than law. By the nature of being the World Assembly Delegate, the Delegates vote has more power than the average resident. The Delegate has the right to use that vote as they see fit, until such time as the Regional Assembly chooses to regulate it.

Finally, the Court turns to the exclusion of residents from media and cultural events held and/or sponsored by the North Pacific. The Delegate and other supporting briefs argue that the government cannot be required to promote and host messages and people it does not want to. They further argue that there is no right to attend events hosted by the region. To an extent, that is true. The Government cannot be required to promote messages it does not want to through certain mediums. The Government cannot be required to send regional telegrams, post dispatches, or host media content on its channel. But the Government is required to host messages in public forums, such as the regional message board, off site forums, and other publicly accessible channels; absent a court order, legal prohibition, or moderator action. The Court finds that this principle holds here. Media shows are a semi-private medium in which the Government can choose whom to host. The Government cannot exclude residents whom it disagrees with from events that are open to the region and/or the public, absent a court sentence, due process, or legal prohibition. Such an action would violate the residents right to assemble and their right to free speech.

Holding​

Sanctions, by their very nature, are punitive for reasons held earlier in this order. The Delegate does not have the authority to impose extrajudicial punishments and by extension impose sanctions on residents, nor can they make actions of a resident a crime by fiat. The Regional Assembly holds the sole authority to define crimes. Any resident of the North Pacific that faces punitive action by the Government is entitled to prior notice that their actions may result in adversarial actions, and such actions are subject to due process of law. While the Government cannot be required to host messages it disagrees with, it cannot prevent residents from attending events hosted or sponsored by the Government that are open to the public and/or the region, unless those residents are individually convicted of a crime or association is proscribed with a declaration of war under Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution.

This matter is now closed. We thank all those who have submitted briefs and Kronos for serving as THO.

I vehemently disagree with key aspects of this ruling, and will say much more on this subject in due course. Nevertheless, I appreciate the great deal of time and effort the Court put into delivering this result, and I am confident you put a lot of thought into it and endeavored to do right by the region in the process. This is often thankless work and in cases such as these, can result in very strong feelings and analysis. Some of that will certainly come from me, but I want to acknowledge that we’re all part of the same community and committed to the jobs we’re doing. At the end of the day, we are on the same team.

That being said, the government is disappointed with this outcome and feels the Court has erred in some very substantial ways. I must disagree with the Chief Justice, this matter is not, in fact, closed. We will be exploring it quite a bit more.

EDIT: Since the Court has seen fit to separate actual response to their ruling from the thread on the ruling for some reason, our response can be found here.

A well reasoned and expansive ruling that will, ultimately, please no one.

That's how you know you're doing right. Kudos to the court.

I have split two post from the thread. If you have an argument against the ruling and standing, please file an appeal if you want the court to rehear. General comments otherwise, please use the thread in the Public Gallery.