[R4R] Regarding "On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code"

Vivanco

Legal Nerd? Yeah, that's me
-
-
-
Pronouns
She/Her They/Them
TNP Nation
vivanco
Discord
ra#9794
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Court's ruling "On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code"

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?

Legal Code, Chapter One
1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.
The Constitution, Article 2
1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific.

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

"On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board", for the review and potential overturn of past Court rulings.

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.

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.

It is in the interest of the region the proper establishment of limits within our legal system and to update in need the Court's ruling in aspects such as this one. I believe this interpretation is severely outdated with the current mechanisms of the region, and in need of a review by the Court. There's a clear distinction whenever what a resident is in our region, and the proper extent of the Criminal Code regarding such. For this, and taking in consideration prior cases in TNP law where a criminal case was brought upon someone who no longer was a member of the region, but at the time of the crime was, I would request a ruling from the Court to properly determine such extent.

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

None at the moment.
 
The Court accepts this Request for Review, but considering the circumstances the Court will wait for the special election results to formally set deadlines for briefs.
I will serve as Moderating Justice.

As the Request for Review concerns a prior Court's ruling, the Court does not see a Government official as Respondent. Instead the Court invites any interested party to submit briefs.
 
The Court accepts this Request for Review, but considering the circumstances the Court will wait for the special election results to formally set deadlines for briefs.
I will serve as Moderating Justice.

As the Request for Review concerns a prior Court's ruling, the Court does not see a Government official as Respondent. Instead the Court invites any interested party to submit briefs.
Will the Court accept briefs pending the election and submission deadlines, or should those who wish to submit briefs wait until the Court has set deadlines?
 
@Pallaith

The Court will accept any briefs posted now or as those may be written during the election, but the current Justices will not take other formal actions in the case until the election. It is our view that a new Justice should not be preempted or denied their full and equal participation.
 
The Court accepts this Request for Review, but considering the circumstances the Court will wait for the special election results to formally set deadlines for briefs.
I will serve as Moderating Justice.

As the Request for Review concerns a prior Court's ruling, the Court does not see a Government official as Respondent. Instead the Court invites any interested party to submit briefs.
May I ask why the Court has not appointed a Temporary Hearing Officer as per Section 3.2, Clause 6 of the Legal Code and continued on as normal?
 
May I ask why the Court has not appointed a Temporary Hearing Officer as per Section 3.2, Clause 6 of the Legal Code and continued on as normal?
Because both remaining Justices believe it is better to wait for the election. The Court should be 3 duly elected Justices, as set forth in the Constitution. We could appoint a THO, and if this had been a time sensitive matter, or if there is a desire for a prompt ruling (For instance from the petitioner, the Court Examiner), that may change our evaluation.
 
As argued by Vivanco (and discussed on Discord), the Court erred in its delay pending the election of a third Justice. A THO will be appointed promptly and a deadline for submission of briefs will be set.
 
I intend to file a brief but would be unable to do so by the end of the briefing period. I respectfully request the briefing period be extended until Feb 5th
 
The Court has decided to extend the filing period to February 5th as requested by Dreadton. We invite all interested parties to file briefs to the Court on this matter.
 
The case before the Court regards hefty matters of jurisdiction. What are the limits, if any, to the jurisdictional application of our laws? Can a person commit a crime and escape any legal ramifications by leaving the region prior to a criminal case being brought against them? Would we try such a person in absentia? What safeguards need be in place to avoid a miscarriage of justice if a person is not there to defend themself? Do we, as The North Pacific, claim jurisdiction in cases where non-residents have perpetrated a crime against us? Would we claim jurisdiction over a case where a resident has committed a crime against an allied region?
Furthermore, we can ask more specific questions, highlighting the phraseology of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code of The North Pacific. When our Bill of Rights explicitly protects "Nations of The North Pacific" against an unfair and partial judiciary [1], can this be construed to limiting those protections to only residents of The North Pacific, or should the protections of our Constitution and Bill of Rights follow the same delineations as our jurisdictional claims?

To say that this is a complicated topic with many possible legitimate answers is perhaps the least controversial statement that can be made. One needs only to look at the scholarly literature [2, pp. 567-574; 3] to see the many ways in which this has been done outside the confines of our polity. The ruling, as it currently stands, does not give a firm answer to the limitations of our claimed jurisdiction, and it is not an unreasonable reading of the ruling that it offers virtually unlimited extraterritorial jurisdiction in all matters where a crime was, is, or may in the future be, committed against The North Pacific, a resident thereof, or any ally by treaty. If the Court finds that the ruling should be overturned in part or in full, the Court would need to replace the ruling with an answer to difficult jurisdictional questions.
As such the Court reiterates its invitation to any interested party to submit briefs on this matter. Briefs can consider the broader implications of our jurisdictional claims, engage with any of the more specific questions raised in this invitation, or go into any issues or virtues of the challenged ruling as it currently stands.


[1] Article 7, Bill of Rights ("7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.", my italics.)
[2] Martinez, Jenny S., 'Horizontal Structuring', in Michel Rosenfeld, and András Sajó (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (2012).
[3] Sweet, Alec Stone, 'Constitutional Courts', in Michel Rosenfeld, and András Sajó (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (2012).
 
A Brief Regarding The Legal Authority Of The Region And Its Reach
When talking about penal law, and most importantly, it's reach, we must consider first the "spatial" realm of the law; The Territory.
The way a state acts, in this case, a region, the way it claims its sovereignity is by the monopoly of violence that's enacted by the power to punish (ius puniendi). And this part of the sovereignity of a region is so linked to itself, it is linked to certain limits, determined I believe by the space in which that sovereignity is held.

In real-life law, this is easy to acertain, as we can safely and easily conceptualice the territory of a nation with its physical land. But within NationStates this can be difficult. For this, I believe that we can all agree that The North Pacific, as a region, consists of the following "territories"

  • The In-Game RMB and Region at large.​
  • The Off-Site Forum​
  • The Off-Site Discords of the region.​
And having this in mind, we must take in mind a principle of law. Locus regit actum. The law that's enacted is the law of the place where the act takes place. Criminal Law, Penal Law is a territorial law, which means that no matter your status, if you are within "The North Pacific" and commit a crime, you should be tried under The North Pacific laws.

But let's say someone does a crime, and then leaves The North Pacific. Would this mean that they're free of charge? No, not at all. Not in the slightest. As we have seen before, in order to commit a crime in TNP, they had to be in TNP to begin with. And thus, because at the time of the crime, they were within TNP, they would still be subject to the laws of that moment.

The case of a Defendant not appearing before the Court is already taken in mind in the current status of the Court Rules and Procedures. Just like every other citizen, every defendant is given a period of time to submit a plea, request counsel... And if a Defendant does not enter a plea or show up, or even declare their councel, as we can see in Section 2, Article 3 of the Court Rules and Procedures:

If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.

Regarding the Court's question whenever TNP should claim jurisdiction for commiting a crime over an allied region, the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, as in, such a thing already exists in the Legal Code. The crimes of both Treason and Espionage make TNP have jurisdiction over such cases over actions taken place in an allied "territory" by a person within TNP (considered as resident)

And no, as in, the reach of TNP is that of its own sovereignity. And we can't expand ourselves further than what our region allows us to do, and be.

And I see no incoherence between the Bill of Rights and what should be TNP's jurisdiction.

I thank the court for its time.
 
Brief

I apologise for the late filing and, if it pleases the Court, would submit the following brief:

This brief will first raise an issue of jurisdiction which it is submitted the Court ought to resolve before considering the substantive issues discussed. It will then go on to address the issues indicated by the Moderating Justice.

Jurisdiction

In any request for review, a preliminary issue is whether the matter is within the scope of the Court's review power. This is confirmed by the Court's decision on Court Review of RA Proposals, which noted that where a request is outside of scope "the Court ought to find in their ruling that the object of the request is not within the scope of their review power, and decline to rule on it."

The fact of the Petitioner's inherent standing to make a request (Legal Code, Section 3.6, clause 34) does not mean that a request brought is within the scope of jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is constitutionally defined as being to "review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions" (Constitution, Article 4, clause 1) and that substantive jurisdiction cannot be expanded by a provision of the Legal Code which only goes to the issue of standing in relation to reviews brought, rather it is submitted that inherent standing must be limited to those reviews which are within the scope of the Court's power.

Here, the request does not clearly set out the manner in which the Court's prior opinion is said to be unconstitutional or unlawful. While it may be inferred that it is said that it in some way contravenes either Article 2, clause 1 of the Constitution or Chapter 1, clause 1 of the Legal Code, the way in which it is alleged to do so is not set out. Neither, it is submitted, does the brief submitted by the Petitioner set out the unconstitutionality or illegality of the opinion.

It is submitted that this is a matter of particular import given the status of official opinions of the Court. The Constitution mandates that "The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials" (Constitution, Article 4, clause 5). While permitting departure from precedent, the Court has held that the such opinions are also binding on the Court itself, as indicated by the decision on the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers "the binding effect prescribed by the Constitution applies to the Court to the extent that it does not bring the Court's precedent into conflict with the Constitution or with subsequent substantive law." Notably, that decision indicates a heightened standard of review is required and that particular efforts for transparency should be made before departing from precedent (though that was subsequently doubted by the Court's decision on the Validity of a Previous Ruling).

In relation to this request, it is submitted that there is a serious question as to whether the request is within the Court's jurisdiction, due to the lack of an adequately specified claim of unconstitutionality or illegality. This is highlighted by the number of issues raised by the Moderating Justice. Many of these stem into the area of "resolving ambiguities" that could stem from a holding that the previous ruling was erroneous. However, a jurisdiction to resolve ambiguities no longer subsists and, while the Court clearly can still interpret the law, such can only be constitutionally done where necessary for the purpose of the Court's jurisdiction to review for unconstitutionality or illegality. If it be the case that the opinion at issue or the underlying law could simply be clearer or leaves areas that are open for interpretation, that is not sufficient to found jurisdiction.

For the reasons advanced above, it is submitted that this is not a case where jurisdiction is clear and that it ought therefore be expressly addressed and determined by the Court and that, should the Court find this request in truth to be a matter of being asked to resolve ambiguities in the law, the request should be dismissed on that basis.

The Issues Raised

This section will address the issues raised by the Moderating Justice, though it will be submitted that a number of them are not suitable for resolution in this review, even if the review is within jurisdiction. The issues will be addressed in a different order to that set out by the Moderating Justice, as the answers to some have bearing on others. For ease of reference, they are identified by number:
  1. What are the limits, if any, to the jurisdictional application of our laws?
  2. Can a person commit a crime and escape any legal ramifications by leaving the region prior to a criminal case being brought against them?
  3. Would we try such a person in absentia?
  4. What safeguards need be in place to avoid a miscarriage of justice if a person is not there to defend themself?
  5. Do we, as The North Pacific, claim jurisdiction in cases where non-residents have perpetrated a crime against us?
  6. Would we claim jurisdiction over a case where a resident has committed a crime against an allied region?
  7. When our Bill of Rights explicitly protects "Nations of The North Pacific" against an unfair and partial judiciary, can this be construed to limiting those protections to only residents of The North Pacific, or should the protections of our Constitution and Bill of Rights follow the same delineations as our jurisdictional claims?

3. and 4. It is submitted that these issues have already been resolved and are not within the scope of this review. The Court's decision on the Nonparticipation of a Defendant in Civil and Criminal Trials states "In cases where the defendant is unable to participate in trial proceedings, or even select their defense attorney, it would be appropriate for the court to delay the trial until the defendant is able to appear. However, if it can be demonstrated to the court that the defendant is able to participate, but chooses not to do so, it would be appropriate for the court to appoint a defense attorney and continue the trial in their absence. There may be other legal and constitutional ways to handle an absentee defendant." This is a clear statement of the law on this issue and is permissive of trials in the absence of a Defendant. The Court Rules and Procedures, as highlighted by the Petitioner's brief, make provision for this eventuality. None of the prior decision of the Court on these issues nor the Court Rules and Procedures nor any particular trial that has been conducted in line with them are challenged by the Petitioner in this review. For those reasons, it is submitted that the Court should regard these issues as having been determined by its prior decision and should not seek to go behind it.

6. It is submitted this issue is not within the scope of this review. The Legal Code makes clear provision for crimes that are committed by a resident against an allied region. Notably, the crimes of treason and espionage cover nations that have treaties with The North Pacific (Legal Code, Section 1.1, clause 2 and Section 1.2, clause 8). Espionage in fact goes further to cover other regions that have treaties prohibiting espionage but falling short of alliances (Legal Code, Section 1.2, clause 9). Similarly, the off-site property offences are crimes that can be committed against any off-site property, as is apparent from the reference in the case of Crashing to "a forum" or in the case of Spamming to "any off-site property" (Legal Code, Section 1.6, clause 16 and Section 1.8, clause 19); this is in line with those crimes being a clear implementation of the Convention on Off-site Property Security, which aims to protect off-site property generally and to prohibit the acceptance of the destruction thereof, including through assertion of a universal jurisdiction (Convention on Off-site Property Security, Article II). These crimes are not challenged by the review and, it is submitted, they are not within its scope.

5. It is submitted that this issue is not within the scope of this review. The prior opinion of the Court was plainly answering the question "Can a nation be prosecuted for anything other than Treason if they are no longer residing in the region?", the Court's answer must clearly be seen in that context. It is not a statement that a non-resident nation may be tried for any matter, but a statement that formerly resident nations can still be tried for any prescribed crime. That point is particularly clear when regard is had to the fact that it was itself confirming a prior holding by the Court under the previous constitution (On the Court's Jurisdiction). That previous decision stated "Non-citizens are liable for committing acts in breach of the North Pacific's Code of Laws and may be tried in these Courts if they can be determined a "resident" of this region" and did so in the context of the crime of Treason. The opinion challenged in this review is answering only whether that principle is applicable to crimes other than treason. Consequently, a challenge to it on the basis that it permits the criminalisation of acts or omissions by non-resident nations that were non-resident at the time of those acts is incorrect, as that was not the issue that the Court was concerned with. It may be the cases that if a criminal charge were brought against a non-resident for a matter that is not a specified crime, then the Court would need to decide that issue, however, that is not the holding of the Court being challenged here and is outside the scope of this review.

2. It is submitted that the resolution of this issue is straightforward. The relevant status for a nation that committed a crime while resident but which subsequently left the region is their status at the time the crime was committed. This is the holding of the Court in the decision at issue in this case. It is submitted that it accords logically with the definitions of crimes set out in the Criminal Code, none of which indicate a defence of ceasing to be a resident, nor is it inconsistent with clause 1, which merely prohibits the bringing of a criminal case against a resident for a crime not listed in the Code. The holding does not lead to the infringement of any provision of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as, even if it were presumed that a non-resident nation does enjoy rights under the Bill of Rights, the most obviously relevant right would be the right not to "be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code" (Bill of Rights, Article 6), which is satisfied by the Criminal Code's listing of specific crimes and not infringed by the Court's holding that, for those crimes, formerly resident nations may still be tried. There is no unconstitutionality or illegality in that holding.

7. It is submitted that this is outside of the scope of this review. No aspect of the conduct of any particular trial is at issue so there cannot be said to be an act on the part of the Court which amounts to an unfair trial of a non-resident nation, presuming that such a nation does enjoy rights under the Bill of Rights, nor is it contended that there is or would be any policy on the part of the Court which would deny a fair trial to such a nation, again presuming they are entitled to the same. The only policy or act that could be at issue is the Court's holding that formerly resident nations may be tried for crimes while residents, however, that holding does not indicate in any sense that there would be a departure from the approach of the Court to the trial of a resident and, it is submitted, cannot be reviewed solely on the basis of the hypothetical that a Court could in future attempt to do so.

1. For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that the proper answer to this question, insofar as it is one which properly arises for the Court's decision, is that the Court's jurisdiction to try formerly resident nations for acts or omissions while resident is coterminous with the extent to which the Criminal Code defined those acts or omissions as crimes. This does not necessarily mark the outer edge of the Court's jurisdiction, however, as further issues beyond this are not within the scope of this review.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that this review should be dismissed because as presently framed it is outside of the scope of the Court's jurisdiction or because the opinion that is the subject of the review is lawful.
 
The Court Rules and Procedures requires the Court to endeavor to deliver a ruling within 14 days after the brief submission deadline. The Court did endeavor to do just that, but it was sadly not feasible, as the Justices are still hard at work.
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Vivanco On Jurisdictional Claims
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism, joined by Justices @St George and @Lord Dominator

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

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Vivanco.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
(...)
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:
Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals
Section 1: Precedent

  1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
  2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
  3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings:

The Court opines the following:
This ruling is in reply to the Request for Review by Vivanco. It will proceed in 5 sections. In Section 1 the petitioner’s standing and regional interest will be noted. In Section 2 the ability of the Court to review prior rulings will be outlined. In Section 3 the Court will analyse the prior ruling and highlight two points of contention. In Section 4 the Court will resolve the ambiguity found in the analysis. In Section 5 the Court will revise the prior ruling. Sections 2 and 3 are to be considered statements of fact. Sections 4 and 5 are the Court’s Holding in the case.

Section 1: Standing and regional interest

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.

Regional interest
The question before the Court is one of jurisdiction; the applicability of the collection of laws, rights, and duties that The North Pacific has duly ratified and imposed. There can be no doubt that the topic has regional interest. As a prior ruling establishes a precedent, the Court finds itself under a heightened standard of review. Therefore the Court recognises that regional interest is not enough, but it has to establish its own jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn the prior ruling, and the Court has to explain itself fully if it desires to revise or overturn precedent.
The Court finds that it does so in Sections 2 and 3.

Section 2: The Court’s ability to review prior rulings
The Request for Review targets a prior ruling by the Court, asking the Court to review whether the ruling stands as precedent or shall be overturned. In past cases the Court has placed emphasis on precedent, and with good reason. Those rulings have the same prescriptive force as a law, and instructs Government officials in their behaviour. To cite precedent on the matter, the Court turns to its prior ruling On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers:
(...) the Court is obliged to review its own decisions should the need arise (and a proper request be made - arbitrary requests for review every time a new Court is elected are not permissible), as it is responsible for doing with all governmental policies (...)
The law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors.
In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Court does not need to find a prior ruling unconstitutional or unlawful to overturn it. The Court, through deliberate review as requested by a person with standing, can find that a prior ruling is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice or the societal norms of The North Pacific as they have evolved since that ruling.
The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn, the challenged ruling with the caveats cited above.

Section 3: Analysis of the prior ruling
The Court finds two points of contention with On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Firstly, while one reading is clearly intended, there is enough possible ambiguity to force through a reading giving the opposite result, and secondly, the ruling does not sufficiently delineate the jurisdiction of The North Pacific to offer justice and protection to the lawful residents of The North Pacific.
The intended meaning of the ruling is quite clear. The first sentence is that “any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason”, which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line “they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific”. However, if one chooses so, they may read an almost limitless claim to jurisdiction into the ruling by focusing on “any nation may be prosecuted” and in the later line the “expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific”. This sort of ambiguity is explicitly what the Court is mandated to resolve by the Constitution.
While resolving ambiguity is worthwhile on its own, the intended meaning is not without flaws. The prior ruling is explicit in dealing with current residents or former residents who are on trial for alleged crimes committed while residents, but that is not in keeping with the social fabric as it has developed. The North Pacific res publica is not limited to the region proper, but also extends to the Forum and the Discord. A person could join The North Pacific’s Forum or Discord without having a nation reside in the region with the explicit intention of committing crimes, or make sure to leave the region prior to committing a crime. Under the ruling as it stands, the Court would not have jurisdiction to try that person.
The Court finds that the points of contention are causes for concern, and sufficient to justify revisiting the precedent set in the ruling. The Court also finds that either point of contention would be enough to live up to the heightened standard of review set by On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers.

Section 4: Resolving ambiguity
The challenged ruling is disambiguated here by the Court holding that the former reading, presented in the analysis, is the correct one. There shall be no doubt that the jurisdiction demarcated by the ruling, prior to this review, was limited to residents of The North Pacific and those nations whose alleged crimes were committed while residents of The North Pacific. The Court did not make extensive claims to jurisdiction in all imaginable future cases where a breach of Legal Code could be expected.

Section 5: Revising jurisdictional claims
The Court furthermore revises its prior ruling to develop a more substantive and workable set of jurisdictional claims. Those claims will be developed here with the necessary clarification. If a former resident or non-resident is alleged to have committed a criminal act and is indicted for it, but does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.

Residents of The North Pacific
Adopted from the challenged ruling, and as stipulated by both the Constitution and the Legal Code, residents of The North Pacific fall under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.

Former residents
Adopted from the challenged ruling, former residents can be tried for crimes they are alleged to have committed while residents of The North Pacific.

Crimes committed on North Pacific soil
The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over crimes committed against residents or the region, as stipulated by the Criminal Code, in cases where that crime happened on North Pacific soil. Soil is here understood to be the equivalent to the physical territory of the region, which is at minimum the Region – including World Factbook Entry, regional Dispatches, and the Regional Message Board – the Forum, and the regional communication platform(s) – currently the collection of The North Pacific’s Discord servers.
Acts that can be considered crimes but which are better handled by forum administration or Vice Delegate and security apparatus do fall under the aegis of The North Pacific, but the Court suggests the Government or citizens not press charges in cases where those acts would be better dealt with by those bodies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top