Foreign Policy Amendments

[Sandaoguo]

Following the recent disagreements about how foreign policy is created and conducted in TSP, I would like to offer for consideration the following amendments to the Charter. I will explain each one below.

 

 

Foreign Policy Amendments to the Charter of The Coalition of The South Pacific

 

Preamble

The Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific, having discussed and debated the dual roles of the Assembly and the Cabinet in formulating and executing foreign policy –and having reached the conclusions that foreign policy is a shared realm, and that while the Assembly is the sole source of legislative legitimacy, the unilateral action by either body may cause unnecessary conflict – hereby amends the Charter of The Coalition of The South Pacific:

 

Article 1. Amendments to Article 3 of the Charter (“Legislature”)

1. Article 3, Section 1, part 8 is amended by replacing it with the following—

“8. Passing or amending Declarations of War and Treaties, following a recommendation by the Cabinet, requires a 60% majority of those voting in favor.”

 

2. Article 3, Section 1 is amended by adding the following after part 8, and renumbering all proceeding parts accordingly—

“9. Repealing Declarations of War and Treaties, following a recommendation by the Cabinet, requires 50% + 1 majority of those voting in favor.”

 

Article 2. Amendments to Article 5 of the Charter (“Executive”)

1. Article 5, Section 2 is amended by adding the following part—

“9. The Delegate may temporarily suspend treaties in extraordinary circumstances, unless the Assembly votes to override the suspension with a vote of 50% + 1 majority of those voting in favor.”

 

2. Article 5, Section 3, part 3 is amended by removing the second sentence, so that the part reads—

“3. The Ministry has the power to negotiate treaties, alliances, and other agreements with a foreign entity.”

 

Explanations for Article 1:

• The Charter has no language for actually amending declarations of war and treaties. The new rule would be that we can amend both under the same threshold it takes to initially pass them, without having to pass a new declaration or treaty altogether.
  
   
  
• The Charter also doesn't have any language at all about repealing declarations of war and treaties. The Court somehow reached the conclusion that repealing is just passing another one, but I don't think that's a valid reading the Charter. Also, I don't think it makes sense to require a 60% majority (like the Court says) for repealing declarations of war and treaties. A higher threshold for passing them is because they represent significant binding commitments upon the Coalition.
  
  
  Repealing them is getting rid of those commitments, so it shouldn't require a higher threshold than a simple majority. Especially with something like declarations of war, repeals would be brought when the war is over, so it doesn't make sense to require 60% in favor of repeal.
  
   
  
• In all cases of passing, amending, or repealing declarations of war and treaties, I don't believe the Assembly should ever be acting unilaterally. Yes, the Assembly is the sole legitimate legislative body in the Coalition. However, the executive is responsible for executing foreign policy. If the Assembly unilaterally does something without the support of the Cabinet, that is simply asking for internal conflict. If we pass something that the Cabinet opposes, how do we expect them to executive it in good faith? Sooner or later, there's going to be a rift, and I would like to prevent that from happening. The Assembly still reserves the right to oppose something proposed by the Cabinet
  

Explanations for Article 2:

• I believe that the Delegate, as the Head of State, should have the ability to temporarily suspend treaty obligations during extraordinary circumstances. Suspending a treaty through the Assembly takes time, because we must debate, come up with language, have agreement on that language, and have at least three days of voting. In an emergency situation, the Delegate should be able to bypass that. However, the Assembly passed the treaty, so it should have the final say. As such, the Assembly can vote to override a suspension with a simple majority. This protects against a Delegate going off the rails, while allowing enough flexibility for the executors of foreign policy to actually execute it.
  
   
  
• The last amendment is simply technical. Article 5, Section 3, part 3 currently says that treaties and alliances must be approved by the Assembly <i>under the provisions for General Laws</i>. General Laws only require a simple majority, whereas treaties require 60%. So this is a conflict that needs to be fixed. I think it's best to just get rid of the entire sentence, because even if it's fixed to reflect the 60% requirement, it's superfluous anyways.
  

[Mizay]

I think that clarifying the distribution of diplomatic duties between the assembly and the executive was overdue and it's good that you took the job on. I don't like this amendment format however because in the past we could see the old text and compare it.

 

I also don't think that our delegate should be able to single-handedly suspend a treaty. That should be a cabinet decision. 

[Hileville]

I will not be supporting this.  I do not support the Delegate being able to suspend treaties nor do I support the Assembly not being able to pass Declaration of War or Treaties without the Cabinet first saying we should.

[Sandaoguo]

I think that clarifying the distribution of diplomatic duties between the assembly and the executive was overdue and it's good that you took the job on. I don't like this amendment format however because in the past we could see the old text and compare it.

I'll see what I can do about the formatting, to give a better picture of before and after.. I chose this format because they're really minor changes (in term of actual text changed).

 

I also don't think that our delegate should be able to single-handedly suspend a treaty. That should be a cabinet decision. 

I think the Delegate should have the authority to act during emergencies, which is what I believe the language reflects. Votes take time, and sometimes time is a luxury. Getting the Cabinet to reach a consensus is easier than getting the Assembly to agree on something, but it still takes a few days. I want to strike a balance between allowing the Delegate to act in the best interests of the region, and ensuring that his or her power remains checked by the Assembly. I need more input on whether this is a power that should be given to the Delegate alone or to the entire Cabinet.

 

<div>
I will not be supporting this.  I do not support the Delegate being able to suspend treaties nor do I support the Assembly not being able to pass Declaration of War or Treaties without the Cabinet first saying we should.

 

Do you have any counter-argument to the points I made? What happens if the Delegate and the Assembly aren't in agreement over something significant? Before I got here, there was a legitimate belief that the UDL was trying to meddle in TSP affairs. What would have happened if those people passed some kind of strong UDL-TSP Treaty over the objections of the Delegate and the Cabinet? This is an extreme example, but it's something that could actually happen under our current system. There needs to be cooperation between the two branches of government, and it needs to rest on something more than gentlemen's agreements.

</div>

[Mizay]

My main issue with giving the delegate powers to suspend treaties is that it could easily be abused, and it's a lot of power that could single-handedly change our participation in a major conflict based not on regional opinion, but on the opinion of one person.

 

The cabinet should be just as capable of acting in emergencies as the delegate. I don't exactly understand why you think we need to risk putting power in one person when we have a capable executive voting body at our disposal. They are completely capable of responding to emergencies, and putting power in the delegate alone opens the door for important decisions to be rushed or unrepresentative of regional opinion.

[Hileville]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mizay" data-cid="105990" data-time="1380490162">
I think that clarifying the distribution of diplomatic duties between the assembly and the executive was overdue and it's good that you took the job on. I don't like this amendment format however because in the past we could see the old text and compare it.

I'll see what I can do about the formatting, to give a better picture of before and after.. I chose this format because they're really minor changes (in term of actual text changed).

 

I also don't think that our delegate should be able to single-handedly suspend a treaty. That should be a cabinet decision. 

I think the Delegate should have the authority to act during emergencies, which is what I believe the language reflects. Votes take time, and sometimes time is a luxury. Getting the Cabinet to reach a consensus is easier than getting the Assembly to agree on something, but it still takes a few days. I want to strike a balance between allowing the Delegate to act in the best interests of the region, and ensuring that his or her power remains checked by the Assembly. I need more input on whether this is a power that should be given to the Delegate alone or to the entire Cabinet.

 

I will not be supporting this.  I do not support the Delegate being able to suspend treaties nor do I support the Assembly not being able to pass Declaration of War or Treaties without the Cabinet first saying we should.

 

Do you have any counter-argument to the points I made? What happens if the Delegate and the Assembly aren't in agreement over something significant? Before I got here, there was a legitimate belief that the UDL was trying to meddle in TSP affairs. What would have happened if those people passed some kind of strong UDL-TSP Treaty over the objections of the Delegate and the Cabinet? This is an extreme example, but it's something that could actually happen under our current system. There needs to be cooperation between the two branches of government, and it needs to rest on something more than gentlemen's agreements.</blockquote>
 

In the type of legislative system we have where the Assembly retains the majority of power in the region we run that risk.  It has worked for us for 10 years and I don't support changing it.  If the Delegate can't work with what the Assembly passes then you better believe they won't be Delegate at the next election or even sooner with a recall.

[Sandaoguo]

 

<div>
My main issue with giving the delegate powers to suspend treaties is that it could easily be abused, and it's a lot of power that could single-handedly change our participation in a major conflict based not on regional opinion, but on the opinion of one person.

 

The cabinet should be just as capable of acting in emergencies as the delegate. I don't exactly understand why you think we need to risk putting power in one person when we have a capable executive voting body at our disposal. They are completely capable of responding to emergencies, and putting power in the delegate alone opens the door for important decisions to be rushed or unrepresentative of regional opinion.

</div>
 

There are still checks if the Delegate is given the authority to temporarily suspend treaties in extraordinary situations. The Assembly can reverse his or her decision. The decision to suspend can be placed with the Cabinet itself, but I think you have a more rosy picture of how efficient and timely the Cabinet actually is. There are six members, and you typically need a majority to do anything substantive. It's not often that 4 Cabinet members are online at the same time. So Cabinet decisions usually take a few days. Not many emergencies require at-the-moment decisions when it comes to treaties, so putting the decision with the Cabinet isn't something I strongly object. I just don't see it as any more preferable than putting the decision in the hands of the Delegate.

[Mizay]

There are still checks if the Delegate is given the authority to temporarily suspend treaties in extraordinary situations. The Assembly can reverse his or her decision. The decision to suspend can be placed with the Cabinet itself, but I think you have a more rosy picture of how efficient and timely the Cabinet actually is. There are six members, and you typically need a majority to do anything substantive. It's not often that 4 Cabinet members are online at the same time. So Cabinet decisions usually take a few days. Not many emergencies require at-the-moment decisions when it comes to treaties, so putting the decision with the Cabinet isn't something I strongly object. I just don't see it as any more preferable that putting the decision in the hands of the Delegate.

The reversal process is too slow to appropriately deal with a poorly made decision in an emergency situation. They're time sensitive.

 

The more reasonable response here would to liven the cabinet up and find ways to make reaching its members more efficient, instead of surrendering a major power to the delegate.

[Hileville]

Wow I just had a deja vu moment with the argument we had about Declarations of War a while back.

[Mizay]

Wow I just had a deja vu moment with the argument we had about Declarations of War a while back.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

[Sandaoguo]

In the type of legislative system we have where the Assembly retains the majority of power in the region we run that risk.  It has worked for us for 10 years and I don't support changing it.  If the Delegate can't work with what the Assembly passes then you better believe they won't be Delegate at the next election or even sooner with a recall.

 

This just doesn't make sense to me at all. Conservatism for the sake of conservatism isn't a convincing argument to me. This is an ill-advised system that doesn't make sense from an objective point of view. The Assembly does not execute foreign policy. We have an executive branch for a reason. I refuse to believe it's perfectly acceptable for the Assembly and the Cabinet to be in massive disagreement over how the executive branch deals with other regions. I'm sorry, but "it's worked for 10 years" is no defense of a badly designed government infrastructure.

 

This game has changed so much in the past year alone, and with the general initiative to bring new people into governance means "10 year" old traditions are going to be changed, ignored, and not even known about. I don't think TSP should be running on gentlemen's agreements over the proper roles of the Cabinet and the Assembly in foreign policy. These are things that need to be outlined in text. I'm merely proposing changes that reflect the practical way regions are run.

 

 

<div>
The more reasonable response here would to liven the cabinet up and find ways to make reaching its members more efficient, instead of surrendering a major power to the delegate.

 

You can't legislate people being online at the same time during emergencies, though. This isn't surrendering a major power to the delegate. If a treaty needs to be temporarily suspended during an emergency for security reasons, the delegate is going to do it anyways. It's their job to maintain the security of the region. They aren't going to wait a week for the Assembly to debate it, nor should they.

</div>

[Mizay]

Can you respond to my comments?

[Rebel-topia]

If we have to, I would support the first changes, regarding the wording of the assembly's passing and amending treaties and DoW.


I think Hile had a good point about tradition, though... You can't just show up and change our laws cause you don't think that they're right. You have to see and understand that our history has made us who we are. our laws are what they are cause they work. I'm not saying our laws are perfect, but they worked pretty darn well for us over the last 10 years.


People come in a region, not just here, and want to over legislate EVERYTHING. Down every little detail. we don't need that. I think SB was spot on the last time she was asked about the spirit of the Charter. There's no need over legislate. its ok have some gray between the black and white.

[Kris Kringle]

The Assembly should have the power to repeal the laws, treaties and war declarations it has established. Period. I think it would be positive to have Cabinet recommendations, but I also think this should not be a requirement. Regarding the Delegate's role, I don't think they should be able to suspend treaties. That could lead to short-term thinking, and that I will not support. True, the Assembly would be able to override the suspension, but we all know how fast is the Assembly with voting and deliberations; not always because it's slow, but because it's procedures so require (take the time it takes to vote on a bill: three days).
 
The explanation for the Cabinet recommendation clause mentions that the Cabinet should be able to execute treaties in good faith, but the Cabinet is bound to execute the law, independently of their agreement with it or not. If the Cabinet thinks the law is wrong or contrary to the region's interests then there is something called debating on a bill, in which members of the Assembly can hear the Cabinet make its case for or against a bill. If the Cabinet's arguments are reasonable, or not, then the Assembly will vote accordingly. In the end...how do we expect them to execute the law in good faith? We expect them to do so because it is their (our) job.
 
That being said, I don't think this is over legislating. I think this is just being thorough, and if we come to an agreement it would be positive to have some things clear about our legislation. If we have some traditions that have worked over the past 10 years, I see no reason why we shouldn't write them down as part of our Charter or CoL. 

[Southern Bellz]

I will not supporting any removal of assembly authority.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4