I have tried to give this some due consideration over the last few days, and I will propose what I see as a compromise ruling.
can you point me to an instance in the past in which the delegate has joined other regions with sanctions and military operations for an indefinite period of time with out a treaty in effect?
The terms outlined here have never been done this way. Ive dug through the archives, including Ghost past terms. There has, as far as i can tell, never been a joint statement like this when there is no treaty. Even when we join other regions to boost a delegate, even during the TEP coup when we were working those operations. what he is doing here has never been the intent behind the sanction laws and well within the intent of the treaty law. We are bound to the intent of the law, not the intent of the goverment (
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/2#post-10495200) the historical application of the treaty law, and the lack of any past history of issuing joint sanctions prevents me from giving the delegate more latitude on this.
To answer you question as where i see that. Its mainly experience over the years watching the internation stage. TSP and TNP have had a history where they have used our statements (correctly or inncorrectly) to claim we violated our treaties. As for us to "trigger the landmine" now, the delegate made this situation, our job is to resolve it under the law. Looking at the existing treaty, i believe the military sanctions may be within the terms and should not be struck. The WA policy has under the delegates control, although there is a case about it being terms of a treaty via the WALL treaty. The cultural aspect i am unsure about and need to read some more on. Although cultural plans have both been treaty terms and general use.
I cannot point you to an instance where the Delegate has joined with other regions without a treaty, but I will note that the Delegate here makes the specific claim that this instance is not for an indefinite period. The Delegate's claim is very particular, insofar that they don't intend it to be legally applicable or persist as a policy outside their tenure. We might find that it is a treaty regardless, but if we do so we should be careful in how we interpret the Government's position and word our ruling. Given that specific claim by the Government, we are faced with some ambiguity in the law, which I will attempt to lay out.
The Government has some fairly broad leeway on setting policy, which can be overturned by the next Delegate. The problem in this particular instance is that what the Government thinks of as setting a policy can become a fait accompli, as you expect it to be on the international stage, because no rational Delegate would revoke the sanctions when the consequences would be so clear. The interpretation by other regions will be that the policy is binding, even when it legally cannot be, on future Governments, because the Delegate failed to make it clear in their statement that in TNP law it was only a policy set by the current government for the tenure of the Delegate. This schism between what is declared as a policy and what will be seen as a binding treaty is at the heart of our discussion, right? You favour the practical, while I favour the theoretical (As you put it earlier, "In theory that may be true, in practicality it isnt.").
My difficulty in sharing your point of view is that the practical results as seen by foreign governments are not legally binding on TNP. You have far more experience in foreign affairs than I do, so I trust your analysis with regard to how for instance TSP will read the sanctions, but that is not a good basis for a ruling. Your concern that this is a landmine to be triggered either now or later is, in my view, a political concern which should be rectified with either clarification in the Legal Code or restrictions on the Delegate, but not an opinion handed out by this Court. I freely grant that this is probably not a loophole left open intentionally, but I think the loophole is there. It is not illegal for the Government to set policy that citizens think is boneheaded or sets TNP on a road to trouble.
In your post quoted above, however, I think there may be room for a compromise. If you see the military sanctions as within the MGC treaty, and the WA policy as under the Delegate's control, then I can sign on to that. We are left, then, with the cultural aspect and the sanctions against TNP residents or citizens (Unless I am missing something).
As for how the delegate can correct it (minus the part we talked about regarding the application towards the residents of TNP) there is two ways. 1) he reissues the statement minus the part about the signatories or 2) we instruct him to get it ratified. There is precident in the court history for both. We ordered the inncorrect citizens oaths to recongized and we have ordered elections to be redone. We can propose both as ways for the delegate to bring it inline.
I think 2) would apply to The Black Hawks, because that is reasonably within the Legal Code 7:7(45).
So my proposed compromise would look like this:
1) The sanctions are phrased publicly in the same form as would a treaty, leading a casual reader to be susceptible to misinterpreting the legal applicability of the sanctions, as the Government's position in its brief to this Court is that the sanctions are only a policy set by the sitting Delegate, to be kept or overturned by a newly elected Delegate. However, this puts any future government under undue pressure by allies to stand by what they see as a treaty obligation, risking The North Pacific's future position. Since the Modern Gameplay Compact's Section III-5 specifically encourages sanctions and military operations as responses to foreign aggression, this Court finds that the sanctions are legal if pursued under the umbrella of the MGC Section III-5 or if clearly communicated as a temporary policy dependent on the Delegate. As such this Court orders the Government to either a) clarify to our allies and in the public announcement that the sanctions as standing are only temporary as a policy set by the current Delegate; b) clarify to this Court and in the public announcement that the sanctions are undertaken under the purview of the MGC section III-5; c) submit the sanctions to a vote by the Regional Assembly under the Legal Code 7:7(45); or d) retract the sanctions.
2) The sanctions are against both the Brotherhood of Malice and The Black Hawks. However, only the Brotherhood of Malice are currently proscribed by The North Pacific under the Legal Code 7:7(45). While it is within the powers of the Government to temporarily refrain from or limit the extend of cultural cooperation with other regions, any preemptive blanket denial, such as the sanctions, must be either in response to a treaty obligation, or sanctioned by the Regional Assembly. As such this Court orders the Government to either a) limit the sanctions in both duration and scope; b) clarify to this Court which treaty obligation is invoked; c) submit the sanctions to a vote by the Regional Assembly under the Legal Code 7:7(45); or d) retract the sanctions.
3) The sanctions as written, and as clarified in the Government's briefs to this Court, are intended to apply to citizens and residents of The North Pacific. Citizens and residents do have a a right to assemble, to petition the Government for redress, to due process, and more generally to participate freely in accordance with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code. These rights can be denied to a general group with a declaration of war or a proscription under the Legal Code's 7:7(45), or individually by a trial for a crime and conviction by this Court. The Government cannot sanction citizens or residents of The North Pacific outside either of these three options.
I think 3) encapsulates what we have agreed on all along, but please correct me if I got something wrong there. We would be forcing the Government to pick between some of the scenarios that we have been talking about here. 1) and 2) are softer versions of the ruling you proposed earlier and correspond to each other. 1a and 2a mixes my reading of the Government's position with your analysis of the consequences. We would grant that their claim of policy is legal, but only if they make that clear to our allies and thus avoid your scenario of a broken treaty later (The current Delegate would then have to deal with the fallout, if there is any). 1b and 2b are because we have been going back to the MGC treaty (And we could have gone over the Equilism treaty as well). At this point I have to wonder why the Government didn't cite those treaties as justifications. 1c and 2c is the RA vote that would obviously make it legal if a sufficient majority backs the Government. And lastly, 1d and 2d are the consequences of not taking any of the previous options.
Obviously this isn't as resolute as your proposed ruling earlier, but after some discussion back and forth I am not sure we are any closer to unanimity than we were before. It is 2 against 1, so your ruling stands if my proposed ruling isn't sufficient.
forum.thenorthpacific.org
