[Chambers] [R4R] On Treaties and Sanctions

@Attempted Socialism and @Kronos This is my proposed opinion for the first question "Is this a treaty" I am still working up the second part on the Delegate sanctioning TNP residents So do not consider this complete.


Standing

Petitioner @vivanco is duly appointed Court Examiner in accordance with Section 3.6 of the legal code. As such, 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?

As such 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 is present as 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, residency, or a history with the proscribed regions. These sanctions barred the signatories from participating in military operations and cultural events or hosting members of the proscribed regions. It also bound 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 (cite the definition of a canidatte)

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. As such, the court fired up its Tardis and 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.

As such 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 until revoked for an indefinite period of time, and outlines the 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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
I have gone over your proposed ruling, and I find much that I can agree to. There are two more substantial edits that I would prefer, however, if you are amenable to it. I have also taken the liberty of proposing some minor edits for readability or style. My proposed changes are accessible on my Google Drive with the register changes function, to make it explicit where I have made edits.
The minor edits are mostly self-explanatory. I have corrected some proper nouns, for instance, and revised a few repetitive "as such".

The two substantial changes I will elaborate on.
The definition. My proposed wording is this:
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.
Click to expand...
I like the definition as put by Dreadton, but I think it can be better. I moved 'indefinitely', added 'formally' to revoked, and 'irreparable breached', because we should not have treaties lapse over minor glitches. A revocation should not be arguable, and as TNP law stipulates it must be ratified by the RA. A treaty can also be breached, which includes e.g. attacks or other substantial violations, which would end a treaty in most circumstances. I added 'binding obligations' to 'responsibilities' because I think it better encapsulates the concerns that Dreadton and I have been discussing, whether a foreign power would view e.g. the sanctions as a binding obligation on TNP, regardless of how it is interpreted by the TNP Court or Executive.

I add a section to 'On the Delegate's Statement':
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. However, as the sanctions are written to be indefinite in duration and lack clear signalling to the other signatories and other regions that the sanctions are merely a policy by the current Delegate and not binding on The North Pacific, the Court finds that this claim is not supported by the text of the sanctions. A reasonable foreign reader would understand the statement to be binding upon the whole of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
This is back to my minority opinion, which I would like some inclusion of. The first two sentences are uncontroversial, I believe. Policies can be revoked, and the Delegate argued that this is a policy. The following two sentences partially grant the theoretical possibility of the sanctions as policy, but refusing it in practise as Dreadton argued earlier. I have argued for legality on this point but I can see the merit in Dreadton's reading, so this is a nod to our discussion back and forth. I have come to accept Dreadton's view that our allies would read a change in policy as a breach of treaty, and that it must be acknowledged at least in part.
I leave open the possibility that a policy could be implemented if finite in duration and with clear signalling to other signatories that the sanctions are merely a policy. A Delegate could do this legally, as I see it, if they avoid the pitfalls. Whether that is acceptable in the current international relations environment I cannot say.
 
On the Delegate’s Ability to Sanction Resident 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 criticize 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 inline 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 promote 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 to whom this law is used against is granted due process and recourse through the Vice Delegate appeal process and via the courts. 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. It is not clear the conditions required to trigger these provisions, just an association. 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, informal or otherwise, 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.
Click to expand...
 
As promised, I have gone through the second part (You can see my suggested edits on my Drive). There's nothing substantial to go over, as we have been in agreement on this part since the beginning. I have suggested a few edits for clarity, I have corrected some proper nouns, and in the Holding section I have added a line acknowledging that the sanctions can be achieved through either individual convictions or Section 7.7 of the Legal Code. The last bit is due to our discussion about the risk of allegations that the Court defends enemies of TNP; obviously we don't, but we do require those crimes be proven with due process.
You indicated to me on Discord you have some feedback on my substantial additions to the first part. I'm not committed to the exact wordings, as long as the general sentiments are in the ruling.
 
residents cant be sanctioned under 7.7, the law only applies to foreign nationals. Even if it did it wouldnt be legal under the bill of rights for the reasons we put in the statement.
 
However, as the sanctions are written to be indefinite in duration and lack clear signalling to the other signatories and other regions that the sanctions are merely a policy by the current Delegate and not binding on The North Pacific, the Court finds that this claim is not supported by the text of the sanctions. A reasonable foreign reader would understand the statement to be binding upon the whole of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

This section i am having trouble with. I would suggest it be switched to something like this

Should the Delegate elect to join or issue sanctions in partnership with other signatories, and not have it met the requirements of a treaty, the Delegate should clearly within the text of the sanctions that they are non-binding on the government and can be revoked at any time.
Click to expand...

I want to avoid the foreign reader requirement, as i think its too broad of a window that leaves uncertainty for the Delegate. Which foreign reader? The signatories? The Sanction region or the GP forum? I think my proposed change achieves the same goal with a clear line to work off of.
 
(Cross-posted from Discord.)
I can see what you're getting at, and I can follow your logic. Your line is more clearly demarcated. If I may, however, the grammar reads weird to me.

and not have it met the requirements of a treaty,
Click to expand...
I think you're shifting tense in the middle there ('met'), but I am not sure 'meet' would get our intended meaning across. Perhaps 'fall under', instead of 'met'?
 
I have updated the sentence in my Drive. If you want to use the Drive version I can accept all suggestions so you have all the minor edits.
I also suppose that @Kronos should sign off on the final ruling before publishing?

Edit: I have copied the ruling in my Drive, and made a version that accepted all suggestions here. The Version History function should show all the suggestions are the same.
 
Last edited:
it would save time if you did that. once you do that I will post a final draft version here for a vote.
 
@Dreadton I have it as a second file on my Drive. You can check the version history if you want.
A minor thing: In the sentence we just modified, we lack a verb in the last part. I suggest "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." I have made it as a suggestion in the document linked in this post.
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @vivanco on the Delegate’s authority to issue sanctions.
Opinion drafted by @Dreadton , joined by @Attempted Socialism, and @Kronos ​

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 Resident 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.
Click to expand...

@Kronos and @Attempted Socialism This is the final draft of the ruling. Please state if you agree in full, agree in part or reject the ruling. There may be minor formatting changes but the susbtance should not need editing.
 
Last edited:
I've read through it once more now, and I can sign on to the ruling in full.

If your intent is still to post the ruling mid-week then I can give it a last read-through tomorrow to see if there are minor things to clean up. I spotted this on this last read-through, for instance:
Most importantly, a person to whom this law is used against is granted due process and recourse through the Vice Delegate appeal process and via the Court.
Click to expand...
I would suggest deleting 'to', so it reads:
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.
Click to expand...
(In the paragraph below the numbered tests of when the Government can restrict speech or actions.)

At the same time I feel confident that we have been over the text so many times that we really are in the realm of nitpicking. There's a limit to how far you can discuss commas.
 
with full agreement being reach I will just go ahead and post, grammer can be corrected if needed but its been long enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top