Osiris Treaty

[StGeorgie]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="StGeorgie" data-cid="105897" data-time="1380266027">
Glen-Rhodes, non-citizens are no longer able to see that forum because if they could, they could also vote in the Plebiscite that is going on. I don't think we want people who aren't Osirians voting on the future of Osiris. Do you?

 

And it was Biyah himself who hid the forum. So how telling is it now?

It's fairly easy to limit access to the forum to read-only, as was the case with several other forums. Biyah is still an admin and is carrying out admin requests. I'm not sure if he endorses Asta's regime now (because the forum is hidden), but I doubt it. Furthermore, this "plebiscite" must be public, so hopefully it's not hidden for long.
 


</blockquote>
Biyah was not requested to hide the forum. He took that action on his own. He does not endorse Asta's regime.

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="105901" data-time="1380269009">
<div>
*does not have the power to unilaterally disolve treaties; what The Assembly enacts only The Assembly can undo*

 

It's actually not very clear. There's no language in the Charter about repealing treaties. I'm not even sure what threshold would be required for this vote! I'm planning on bringing it up as a simple resolution voicing the Assembly's belief that the treaty is no longer active, rather than a substantive repeal of it. Looking through the archives, I can only find one instance of the Assembly repealing a treaty (the Modern Pacific Alliance). There's no mention of the threshold required, and it didn't even garner true majority support (most people voted nay or abstained). I don't consider that precedent.

 

So, lacking that information, I'm basing my assumption off of real-world procedures (at least in the US). As the head of state, the Delegate and his/her Cabinet has plenary power over foreign relations (the Assembly doesn't vote on embassies, for example). Part of that power is the authority to terminate or suspend treaties. The Assembly gets involved when the Delegate wants to introduce something that will be binding upon us and the whole region, such as treaties and declarations of war. Otherwise, foreign relations is conducted at the executive level.

 

I'll bring a resolution up for vote in the next hour or two. I'll also be bringing a question to the Chief Justice about repealing treaties. If it turns out the Assembly has the power to repeal them, then the resolution will have binding force. Otherwise, it'll serve as an official opinion targeted at the Cabinet. I think that's a fair route to go.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Utter nonsense. The Assembly is and always has been the singular source of legal authority in TSP, and no regional official has the power to contravene it's declarations. The Cabinet does not have plenary power over anything; it's authority is limited to those subjects The Assembly assigns to it and executive policy exists only in the absence of acts of The Assembly. Treaties being formal legal declarations of The Assembly are binding upon the Cabinet, and can only be undone by The Assembly itself.

 

Stop making things up. We have ten years of constitutional precedent defining matters like this, when you don't know what it is just ask and someone will tell you.

[Southern Bellz]

Motion to repeal

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

[Sandaoguo]

Utter nonsense. The Assembly is and always has been the singular source of legal authority in TSP, and no regional official has the power to contravene it's declarations. The Cabinet does not have plenary power over anything; it's authority is limited to those subjects The Assembly assigns to it and executive policy exists only in the absence of acts of The Assembly. Treaties being formal legal declarations of The Assembly are binding upon the Cabinet, and can only be undone by The Assembly itself.

 

Stop making things up. We have ten years of constitutional precedent defining matters like this, when you don't know what it is just ask and someone will tell you.

 

 

It's not utter nonsense, and with all due respect, it's not your decision to make. I'm the Chair of the Assembly, and part that position entails the responsibility to manage the activities of the Assembly. I intend to do so, and I intend to follow the Charter. There is no provision in the Charter for the Assembly repealing a treaty. It's simply not one of our enumerated powers. We are explicitly granted the sole authority to approve of a treaty, not to terminate one. Neither do we conduct foreign policy. Despite what you say, that is a plenary power for the executive. The Assembly does not establish or remove embassies. We do not write Cabinet statements. We do not unilaterally create treaties or declare war. The Assembly doesn't go around talking to other regions about our relations. We serve as a check on the foreign policy powers of the Delegate and the Cabinet, not the executors of it. And certainly not the destroyers of it. I don't think I have the authority to bring to vote a repeal of the TSP-TNI treaty, and that's how it should be.

 

As far as I can tell, the Assembly has only ever repealed one treaty. I've even conducted a search on the old forums for "repeal treaty" that yielded zero results. So even if we want to rely on convention, there isn't one apparent. I don't want to rely on anyone's conventional wisdom. The Charter is supreme over that. I will bring to vote a resolution expressing the Assembly's belief that the treaty is no longer in force, and the Cabinet can support it or oppose it. I will go through the legal avenues to request clarification on repealing/terminating treaties. This is my duty as the Chair.

[Sandaoguo]

Motion to repeal


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

 

There's already been a motion to repeal, and it's been seconded. Do you support the language I adopted, or are you re-introducing a motion for straight up repeal?

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="105917" data-time="1380311537">
<div>
Utter nonsense. The Assembly is and always has been the singular source of legal authority in TSP, and no regional official has the power to contravene it's declarations. The Cabinet does not have plenary power over anything; it's authority is limited to those subjects The Assembly assigns to it and executive policy exists only in the absence of acts of The Assembly. Treaties being formal legal declarations of The Assembly are binding upon the Cabinet, and can only be undone by The Assembly itself.

 

Stop making things up. We have ten years of constitutional precedent defining matters like this, when you don't know what it is just ask and someone will tell you.

 

 

It's not utter nonsense, and with all due respect, it's not your decision to make. I'm the Chair of the Assembly, and part that position entails the responsibility to manage the activities of the Assembly. I intend to do so, and I intend to follow the Charter. There is no provision in the Charter for the Assembly repealing a treaty. It's simply not one of our enumerated powers. We are explicitly granted the sole authority to approve of a treaty, not to terminate one. Neither do we conduct foreign policy. Despite what you say, that is a plenary power for the executive. The Assembly does not establish or remove embassies. We do not write Cabinet statements. We do not unilaterally create treaties or declare war. The Assembly doesn't go around talking to other regions about our relations. We serve as a check on the foreign policy powers of the Delegate and the Cabinet, not the executors of it. And certainly not the destroyers of it. I don't think I have the authority to bring to vote a repeal of the TSP-TNI treaty, and that's how it should be.

 

As far as I can tell, the Assembly has only ever repealed one treaty. I've even conducted a search on the old forums for "repeal treaty" that yielded zero results. So even if we want to rely on convention, there isn't one apparent. I don't want to rely on anyone's conventional wisdom. The Charter is supreme over that. I will bring to vote a resolution expressing the Assembly's belief that the treaty is no longer in force, and the Cabinet can support it or oppose it. I will go through the legal avenues to request clarification on repealing/terminating treaties. This is my duty as the Chair.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Bollocks. The job of CoA does not include pulling new procedures out of your arse in the face of all regional convention and precedent. The Assembly is not limited merely to enumerated powers; it possess the constitutional authority to assert any power not previously appropriated to a specific official or body. Any and all powers not specifically detailed in the Charter or Code of laws revert to The Assembly as the sovereign authority of TSP and can and have been so asserted previously. Regional officials are delegated various powers by The Assembly, but do not hold them in of themselves; said powers can be returned to The Assembly should it so wish.

 

That is how our system of government works, as established over the last decade by precedent and convention. This was the case before you joined TSP. This was the case before I joined TSP. As far as I am aware this was the case before SB joined TSP.

 

You do not get to re-write TSP constitutional theory to suit your own preferences. Your conception of our constitutional structure is based upon what you think makes sense, not what our constitutional structure actually is. The Assembly has always been and is the sole body with legal responsibility in regards to Treaties.

[Sandaoguo]

Bollocks. The job of CoA does not include pulling new procedures out of your arse in the face of all regional convention and precedent.

I'm following the Charter, in consultation with "regional convention and precedent." Of all the searches I've done, there is no strong precedent for the Assembly unilaterally repealing a treaty. There's been one repeal which didn't have true majority support. One vote does not make a precedent. I'm choosing to exercise caution and conservatism. I know that you view the role of the Chair and the role of the Assembly in general as having expansive powers, but I don't agree.

I'm doing my job the way I believe it should be done, and that includes making sure the Assembly is acting within the confines of the Charter. There is no language in the Charter to guide me in repealing a treaty, so I've asked the Court their opinion of the role of the Assembly in foreign policy and whether or not we can unilaterally repeal a treaty. In the meantime, I've offered a resolution that will either be binding, or will be non-binding in the event that the Court advises that the Assembly can't unilaterally repeal a treaty. That, in my opinion, is the best route forward. If you disagree, then you can run for Chair of the Assembly in the next election and do things differently.
 

The Assembly is not limited merely to enumerated powers; it possess the constitutional authority to assert any power not previously appropriated to a specific official or body. Any and all powers not specifically detailed in the Charter or Code of laws revert to The Assembly as the sovereign authority of TSP and can and have been so asserted previously.

If the Assembly wants the definitive power to unilaterally repeal treaties, it can grant itself that power through an amendment to the Charter. Due to the nature of foreign policy, specifically how it is delegated to the executive branch in the Charter, I'm not going to use my position as Chair to grant powers to the Assembly that are not outlined in the Charter. Sorry, but we simply disagree on the power of the Assembly. I reiterate that the Assembly can amend the Charter to give itself new powers. It should not do so simply by doing whatever it wants. We have a Charter for a reason. It's not just a suggestion that can be ignored by the Assembly anytime it wishes.
 

The Assembly has always been and is the sole body with legal responsibility in regards to Treaties.

I don't really believe this. I'm fairly certain if I were to, say, negotiate a treaty with the UDL and bring it to vote, completely bypassing the MoFA, Delegate, and Cabinet in general, I would be thrown out of this region faster than the eject button can be pressed. The Assembly is not the creator and executor of foreign policy. The Charter simply doesn't support that opinion, and for good reason. Foreign affairs are conducted at the executive level, because any agreement between two regions needs the consent of the in-game delegates to have any real relevance at all.

[Kris Kringle]

I believe that treaties insofar as they must be passed by the Assembly should be held to the same standards as regional laws, and so it is to a certain extent reasonable to assume that if the Assembly can repeal laws then it can repeal treaties, which is after all somehow a law that by bilateral agreement will also be the law in another region.
That being said, the language in the Charter is somehow ambiguous and it would indeed be positive to submit the question to the Supreme Court. After all that is part of our checks and balances and it would settle this doubt so we can determine the course of action in repealing or suspending the treaty.

[Sandaoguo]

That being said, the language in the Charter is somehow ambiguous and it would indeed be positive to submit the question to the Supreme Court. After all that is part of our checks and balances and it would settle this doubt so we can determine the course of action in repealing or suspending the treaty.

I've already submitted questions to the Court. However, it's not necessary to wait for a response. The way I've worded the resolution, it will be binding or non-binding depending on the decision of the Court. I imagine it will take some time for Southern Bellz to properly address the questions. This an academic debate that is separate from the policy debate of what we should do about the Osiris-TSP treaty.

There's been several motions to completely repeal it. Belschaft would prefer to suspend it and renegotiate in the future. So there's a very small gap in preferences. I think the wording I provided a few posts back is a good compromise-- the treaty isn't "in force" (suspended or repealed, however you want to read it) and we want to renegotiate it at some point in the future. However, it needs a second. And if it doesn't get a second, then I need to know specifically what changes you guys want made to the text.

[Kris Kringle]

I agree that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous. My point was that anyway it's a healthy thing to be giving work not crime-related to the Supreme Court, so that we keep our judiciary active.

[Sandaoguo]

I agree that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous.

Is that a second?

My point was that anyway it's a healthy thing to be giving work not crime-related to the Supreme Court, so that we keep our judiciary active.

Definitely agree. Gives them a reason to clear out the cobwebs!

[Rebel-topia]

I dont care if we say we're putting the treaty on the moon. It needs to be null-in-void, wether we decide to re-visit it at a later date or not.

[Sandaoguo]

Although I disagree with the Court's opinion and will be seeking a Charter amendment to reverse it, the Court has settled the issue. The Assembly can repeal a treaty, even in the opposition of the Cabinet mind you, with 60% voting in favor. I will bring this up as soon as somebody actually seconds a clear motion. In other words, I need to know whether or not you guys support a clean repeal, a suspension, a renegotiation, or some combination thereof. I haven't gotten a clear message, here. (And I really need somebody to explicitly second a motion...)

 

Keep in mind, the language I proposed would now be a binding repeal.

[Southern Bellz]

Clean repeal.

[QuietDad]

I second it.

[Sandaoguo]

Clean repeal.

 

Do you support this language? I'm not sure what "clean repeal" means to you in terms to how the bill is written... This is the exact same as my previous language, except it explicitly says "'repeal" and doesn't include the renegotiation clause, and written in different format.

 

Article 1: Discoveries


1. The regions of The South Pacific and Osiris entered into a treaty on March 29, 2013, recognizing the importance of unity between Game-Created Regions,


2. The Osiris-TSP Treaty emphasizes the sole recognition of the legitimate governments of both regions,


3. On September 15, 2013, the nation Detective Figs (also known as “Astarial” and “Asta”) engaged in a coup d’etat of the legitimate government of Osiris, in the midst of a constitutional convention,


4. The Cabinet of the The Coalition of The South Pacific released a statement on September 18, 2013, expressing its concern over the actions of Detective Figs and other prominent members of Osiris, particularly regarding the concentration of power towards the new regime,


5. The aforementioned statement predicated the support of The South Pacific for the new Osiris regime on the new regime being a temporary trustee that would guide Osiris to a return of constitutional government and address the frequent instability issues of the region,


6. The new regime released a set of “Ground Rules” that appeared to be a long-term vision for the regime to stay in power, in contradiction to the initial understanding that Detective Figs would not remain in power permanently,


7. The new regime lost the support of important and prominent members of Osiris,


8. The above events cause great concern to the Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific regarding the continued stability of Osiris,

Article 2: Conclusions


1. The new regime of Osiris led by Detective Figs is not the legitimate government of Osiris.


2. There is an obligation for The South Pacific to recognize only the legitimate governments of Game-Created Regions.

Article 3: Formal Repeal of the Osiris-TSP Treaty


Due to the unfortunate events of September 15, 2013, and troubling development thereafter, the Assembly of The Coalition of The South repeals the Osiris-TSP Treaty.

[Southern Bellz]

I think we just need something crossing out the text of our last treaty.  I think the above is too much.

 

I think we can leave the statement to the cabinet.  I have enough faith in our MoFA and delegate to communicate the will of the assembly properly.

[Sandaoguo]

"Crossing out the text" isn't really a format we've used, though. I've copied the format of the Declaration of War against Gatesville, with the "Findings." We can leave that to a Cabinet statement, but then we would have to wait for the Cabinet to release that statement. I don't want to just pass a repeal without any explanation, so that somebody a few years from now looks back and can't figure out why Osiris and TSP had a falling out in late 2013...

[Hileville]

I'm okay with the proposed text above and motion that text to vote.

[Belschaft]

1; I can't find the precise date for the Osiris-TSP treaty but it was not March 29th 2013 - that is the date we moved to IPB and the old forums were converted. We were allied with Osiris spring of 2012 at the very latest, as we formed the Triple Alliance summer of 2012.

 

2; I once more recommend against a unilateral repeal of the Osiris-TSP treaty and suggest a suspension instead.

[Sandaoguo]

There's a thread for the Osiris-TSP Treaty in the old forums dated March 15, 2013 (http://s2.thesouthpacific.org/topic/954097/1/). The best way to determine the date would be on Osiris' forum, since they've never switched forums. But their permissions for non-citizens are so restrictive, I can't access any law archives. I'll just remove any specific date, in the interests of expediency.

 

As far suspension, I would also prefer that path. But there have been multiple motions for a complete repeal. We could also vote on two different bills at once, though that would be confusing. As it is, though, I can't really delay the motions for repeal any longer...

[Kris Kringle]

Our actions with respect to this Treaty should reflect as well our hopes that the situation in Osiris will see a swift and positive solution. Thus I think the way to go is to "suspend enforcement of the treaty", as our issue is not with the region itself as much as with its leadership. A suspension will reflect the fact that we have an interest in a continued relationship with the region of Osiris, but not until we see that there is a will to create adequate institutions for its governance.

[Sandaoguo]

Okay, we really need to iron this out now. I have multiple motions (with seconds) in favor of repeal. I now have a motion (seemingly with a second) in favor of suspension. I should have brought a repeal up after the first motion to repeal got a second, but I wanted to give time for Belschaft to give his opinion. He did, and yet there was another motion (and a second) for a clean repeal of the treaty. Technically, I should be bringing two bills up for vote right now: one to repeal and one to suspend.

 

You guys aren't making this job easy for me!   This is a really really really small disagreement we're having. Suspension is temporary termination. The practical outcomes are identical. My original language was a compromise: the treaty is repealed, but we really want to renegotiate it soon.

 

At the bottom of this post are alternative bills. Somebody please just second some kind of language. And by that, I mean please actually quote the text you want, saying you second it, so that I know when I bring it up for vote, I won't be called out for anything. If you don't like any of the option below, please feel free to write one yourself! I may be the Chair, but I'm no the only one who can write official bills!

 

---

Article 1: Discoveries


1. The regions of The South Pacific and Osiris entered into a treaty on March 29, 2013, recognizing the importance of unity between Game-Created Regions,


2. The Osiris-TSP Treaty emphasizes the sole recognition of the legitimate governments of both regions,


3. On September 15, 2013, the nation Detective Figs (also known as “Astarial” and “Asta”) engaged in a coup d’etat of the legitimate government of Osiris, in the midst of a constitutional convention,


4. The Cabinet of the The Coalition of The South Pacific released a statement on September 18, 2013, expressing its concern over the actions of Detective Figs and other prominent members of Osiris, particularly regarding the concentration of power towards the new regime,


5. The aforementioned statement predicated the support of The South Pacific for the new Osiris regime on the new regime being a temporary trustee that would guide Osiris to a return of constitutional government and address the frequent instability issues of the region,


6. The new regime released a set of “Ground Rules” that appeared to be a long-term vision for the regime to stay in power, in contradiction to the initial understanding that Detective Figs would not remain in power permanently,


7. The new regime lost the support of important and prominent members of Osiris,


8. The above events cause great concern to the Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific regarding the continued stability of Osiris,

Article 2: Conclusions

1. The new regime of Osiris led by Detective Figs is not the legitimate government of Osiris.


2. There is an obligation for The South Pacific to recognize only the legitimate governments of Game-Created Regions.

Article 3: Formal Repeal of the Osiris-TSP Treaty


Due to the unfortunate events of September 15, 2013, and troubling developments thereafter, the Assembly of The Coalition of The South repeals the Osiris-TSP Treaty.

 

---

Article 1: Discoveries


1. The regions of The South Pacific and Osiris entered into a treaty on March 29, 2013, recognizing the importance of unity between Game-Created Regions,


2. The Osiris-TSP Treaty emphasizes the sole recognition of the legitimate governments of both regions,


3. On September 15, 2013, the nation Detective Figs (also known as “Astarial” and “Asta”) engaged in a coup d’etat of the legitimate government of Osiris, in the midst of a constitutional convention,


4. The Cabinet of the The Coalition of The South Pacific released a statement on September 18, 2013, expressing its concern over the actions of Detective Figs and other prominent members of Osiris, particularly regarding the concentration of power towards the new regime,


5. The aforementioned statement predicated the support of The South Pacific for the new Osiris regime on the new regime being a temporary trustee that would guide Osiris to a return of constitutional government and address the frequent instability issues of the region,


6. The new regime released a set of “Ground Rules” that appeared to be a long-term vision for the regime to stay in power, in contradiction to the initial understanding that Detective Figs would not remain in power permanently,


7. The new regime lost the support of important and prominent members of Osiris,


8. The above events cause great concern to the Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific regarding the continued stability of Osiris,

Article 2: Conclusions

1. The new regime of Osiris led by Detective Figs is not the legitimate government of Osiris.


2. There is an obligation for The South Pacific to recognize only the legitimate governments of Game-Created Regions.

Article 3: Suspension of the Osiris-TSP Treaty


Due to the unfortunate events of September 15, 2013, and troubling developments thereafter, the Assembly of The Coalition of The South suspends application of the Osiris-TSP Treaty, pending renegotiation with a legitimate Osiris government.

---

The Assembly of the Coalition of The South Pacific, having debated the ongoing situation in Osiris, specifically considering the actions of current Empress Detective Figs (also known as "Astarial" and "Asta"), wishes to express is great concern that Osiris has been suffering from long-term instability, and that the current regime has compounded the issues Osiris faces. It is with great regret that the Assembly declares the following:

1. The new regime of Osiris led by Detective Figs is not the legitimate government of Osiris.

2. There is an obligation for The South Pacific to recognize only the legitimate governments of Game-Created Regions.

3. Due to the unfortunate events of September 15, 2013, and troubling developments thereafter, the Assembly of The Coalition of The South repeals the Osiris-TSP Treaty.

---

The Assembly of the Coalition of The South Pacific, having debated the ongoing situation in Osiris, specifically considering the actions of current Empress Detective Figs (also known as "Astarial" and "Asta"), wishes to express is great concern that Osiris has been suffering from long-term instability, and that the current regime has compounded the issues Osiris faces. It is with great regret that the Assembly declares the following:

1. The new regime of Osiris led by Detective Figs is not the legitimate government of Osiris.

2. There is an obligation for The South Pacific to recognize only the legitimate governments of Game-Created Regions.

3. Due to the unfortunate events of September 15, 2013, and troubling developments thereafter, the Assembly of The Coalition of The South suspends application of the Osiris-TSP Treaty, pending renegotiation with a legitimate Osiris government.

[Hileville]

Or you can just go into the archives on this forum and take a look at the vote thread http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/...sp-treaty/.

 

The treaty was passed on 15 March 2012 with a vote of 1-0-2.

 

Now to address the suspension issue that is being brought up.  The KRO is not coming back and this treaty was negotiated with the KRO.  Suspending a treaty we MUST change anyway to avoid nasty precedent is stupid.

[Mizay]

Hile summarizes my opinion well.

 

Additionally, recognizing treaties with non-existent governments establishes an troublesome precedent diplomatically, and that mess isn't something I'd want to be near as Deputy MoFA.