Your Lordships,
I would like to submit my brief on the above subject as given by the Court Examiner
@TlomzKrano . I have written my brief in multiple parts for the sake of brevity and convenience.
- The Court’s Previous Ruling [On the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations]
- Addressing the conflict between standing legal code and the previous court ruling.
- Potential Course of Action which may be taken by the Court.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed by
BMWSurfer. The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by
9003, QuietDad, Gladio, and
Praetor. The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the legal code of the North Pacific especially related to the NPA.
The officer of the NPA was apprehensive whether the policy decisions and actions of their supervisor (Gladio in this case) could place them in violation of the North Pacific’s Legal code.
The court ruled that a NPA Policy/action that would allow the NPA to support raids that engage in acts prohibited by Section 7.6 of the Legal Code would, without any doubt, put the NPA in violation of The North Pacific's Legal Code. Section 7.6 clause 48 and 49 states the prohibited acts,
48. “The following are Class A restricted actions:
- changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
- closing embassies;
- altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
- suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
- closing or opening a regional poll;
49. The following are Class B restricted actions:
- applying a password to a region;
- banning or ejecting nations native to a region;”
Section 7 Subsection 6 Clauses 32 & 33(now clause 48 and 49) are designed keeping in mind the harmful impact the NPA can cause while being deployed in foreign regions. The Court also said that not being in control of operation(s) does not shield the NPA from the limitations placed on it by the Regional Assembly through The North Pacific's Legal Code. The following clauses, in my opinion, keeps a check on NPA,
Section 7.6 clause 46 says,
“The Regional Assembly must be informed of all operations undertaken by The North Pacific Army as soon as practicable, unless they are classified by the Delegate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.”
Section 7.6 clause 47 says,
“The Regional Assembly may declassify an operation by a majority vote.”
Section 7.6 clause 54,
“The Regional Assembly may require The North Pacific Army to withdraw from any operation, and impose other requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation, by majority vote.”
While the legal code does not apply on foreign organizations, since the NPA falls under the legal code, if the NPA’s actions would be a violation of the Legal Code, then the NPA cannot passively or actively support the violations, that occur without itself being in violation of legal code.
Addressing the conflict between standing legal code and the previous court ruling.
The Court Examiner presents us the conflict. The present clause 51 states,
“Members of The North Pacific Army may participate in joint operations with other militaries that perform restricted actions, and may serve as Regional Officers in foreign regions during such joint operations, but may not perform any restricted actions themselves in the joint operation, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.”
This conflict is well described by
@TlomzKrano ,
“Clause 51, above, explicitly allows for NPA participation in joint operations in which partner entities are performing actions that are prohibited by TNP law. The only condition being the NPA may not partake in any restricted behaviour themselves, except where necessary to restore native control. The ruling now clearly contradicts currently existing portions of Section 7.6 of the Legal Code.”
The Court ruling in, “
On the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations”, affirmed the NPA cannot violate or support the violation of the legal code. But, since the legal code has been amended, the NPA can participate in Joint operations with other militaries who perform restricted action given in clause 47 and 48 stated earlier. We are now presented with a situation where the Court’ ruling lead to an amendment in the legal code by the Regional Assembly, which now contradicts the said ruling.
I will now present my arguments.
I would like to direct Your Lordships’ attention to an excerpt on the Court’s ruling, “
On Defunct Rulings” which says,
“This Court is often asked to rule on laws that are ambiguous. That is the nature of a Court with the power of judicial review. Those rulings have the force of law, but they are not laws themselves. When a ruling may be in error the most direct corrective to that is an appeal. If, instead, the citizenry – through the Court’s ruling – is made aware of a flaw in the Legal Code, the proper corrective is to clarify the citizenry’s intent with the law through new legislation. As such it should be expected that Court rulings give rise to legislation that is meant to supersede Court rulings. This is also not the first time that the Court is asked to weigh in on a previous ruling that has since been superseded. It is, however, the first time that the Court sets out to make a test for superseded rulings, and clearly spell out what the status of a superseded ruling is.”
I would like to mention another excerpt for Your Lordships’ consideration,
“After establishing these facts, the Court should evaluate any impact on a ruling. If the ruling was correct then but would be incorrect now, the ruling is defunct: the Court should be careful not to phrase this as overturning the ruling, but instead that the ruling is superseded by subsequent legislation and is defunct as precedent. If the ruling would be unchanged the Court should uphold the ruling and explain in the ruling that it was not effectively superseded by legislation. In between those extremes the Court should carefully evaluate to what degree the ruling would be affected by the new legislation. If the substance of the ruling is significantly affected, the Court should give deference to the Regional Assembly’s lawmaking powers and consider the ruling defunct, but if a ruling is only partially superseded, then it is defunct only in that part, and the Court must let the remainder of the original ruling stand (or overturn it for other reasons).”
The above excerpt clearly tells that a new legislation being introduced and amended into the legal code by the Regional Assembly is completely legal as affirmed by this Esteemed Court. In the same way, the amendments made into Section 7.6 The North Pacific Army superseded the ruling and the ruling should be declared by, Your Lordships, defunct. An excerpt from the ruling, “
On Defunct Rulings” which aids in my case,
“The Regional Assembly introduced, debated, and voted on legislation that the Delegate signed into law. This new legislation, as quoted from the Legal Code above, rewrote the relevant parts of the law to make clear the intent to make some general rules apply to all elections, and included in this the ability of voters to vote for reopening nominations. This legislation was intended to specifically address the outcome of the Court's review, and did so in full.
The Court finds that, while the challenged ruling was correct at the time, the law that gave rise to that ruling has been changed since, and in a way that would make the ruling incorrect now. As such the ruling is superseded by subsequent legislation and is defunct as precedent.”
While it is true, that the NPA, in my humble opinion, passively(indirectly) violates the legal code by participating with other military organizations who actively take part in the prohibited actions listed in the legal code which is, indeed, a cause of concern. But, I, believe this decision would be best handled by the Regional Assembly, not the Court. I would like to state an excerpt from the ruling,” On
Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies” which says,
“The Court is not a legislative or regulatory body, and believes it is always better for the Regional Assembly to settle ambiguities in law itself, and for government bodies to clearly outline their own procedures and address deficiencies with internal amendments wherever possible. Nevertheless, we have many times outlined provisions or rules that can guide government bodies when these guidelines or rules were not in place, and may continue to do so from time to time, but on such occasions the Court must endeavour to tread lightly and only as much as is required by the nature of the ambiguity at the heart of the question it is asked to answer.”
If there’s a further source of concern by Your Lordships, I would like to direct your attention to an excerpt from the ruling, “
On RA Oversight of the North Pacific Armed Forces”, which says,
“The text of the law here is quite clear that every clause here is understood to begin with the phrase "
The NPAF must operate so that..." Therefore, it is the
opinion of the Court that, per the text of the law, the
NPAF must act in such a manner so that it is actually
possible for the Regional Assembly to exercise its right under clause C.”
The law stated in the above excerpt is listed below,
“4. The NPAF must operate so that:
- The Delegate can issue a blanket approval for the NPAF to work with a given organisation. The Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate must still authorize individual missions.
- Any NPAF member may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact TNP security for any reason that the Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate determines is reasonable.
- The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPAF deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.”
Even though the legal code has been amended, the intention is of paramount importance here. The Regional Assembly, in my opinion, had, and still has the power to keep a check on the activities of the NPA. I, from my personal standpoint, believe that the ruling confirmed that the NPAF (now NPA) must act in a reasonable manner and the Regional Assembly has oversight of the NPA. There are checks and balances at place, which I can only hope, satisfies Your Lordships’ concerns.
Potential Course of Action which may be taken by the Court.
Now, the question arises, Your Lordships, what could be the potential course of action? In my humble opinion, I believe the court should do the following.
The Court should acknowledge, that the Court ruling on “
On the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations”, should be rendered defunct as per excerpt stated below from the ruling, “
On Defunct Rulings”,
“After establishing these facts, the Court should evaluate any impact on a ruling. If the ruling was correct then but would be incorrect now, the ruling is defunct: the Court should be careful not to phrase this as overturning the ruling, but instead that the ruling is superseded by subsequent legislation and is defunct as precedent. If the ruling would be unchanged the Court should uphold the ruling and explain in the ruling that it was not effectively superseded by legislation. In between those extremes the Court should carefully evaluate to what degree the ruling would be affected by the new legislation. If the substance of the ruling is significantly affected, the Court should give deference to the Regional Assembly’s lawmaking powers and consider the ruling defunct, but if a ruling is only partially superseded, then it is defunct only in that part, and the Court must let the remainder of the original ruling stand (or overturn it for other reasons).”
Your Lordships may provide further clarifications on this subject matter.
I thank Your Lordships for giving me your valuable time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
