Your honor,

It was not my initial intention to weigh in on this debate, but as delegate and voice for the game-side members nations, I must ask a tangential, but incredibly important question here.

Do treaties — and, likewise declarations of war — speak for those who reside in the South Pacific, but are not active on the forums (a.k.a. the game-side community)?

It is my belief that the answer to this question is undoubtedly yes, since the resources needs to protect allies come directly from the game-side community. Likewise, the game-side community — and delegate's seat — is ultimately what is being "protected" by these alliances, and the game-side nations would be the most disrupted during any military actions in the region.

I ask this tangentially related question because, if — as is my belief — the game-side community has a stake in the treaty process, then there are significant ramifications for the discussion at hand.

Primarily, I point to Article XII of the Charter:

Quote:2. Debate on Charter amendments will last for a minimum of two weeks, unless the Council on Regional Security acknowledges that the amendment addresses an immediate and perilous issue that threatens the security of the region. Any amendment that directly affects the game-side community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the game-side community.

While directly discussing "Charter amendments," the intention of giving the game-side community a say over how (1) legislation effects the community and (2) their community is set up, is clear.

As such, if we accept that (1) the game-side community is directly affected by treaties, and (2) that the Charter calls for the game-side community to have a hand in its governance, then the game-side community must also have a say about treaties, which directly effects the in-game region.

Further, the question at hand is whether or not the Cabinet shall have sole authority to dissolve treaties. Since the game-side community has no say over who is elected to the Cabinet — unlike the delegate and Local Council — it must be concluded that the game-side community would have absolutely no say over the treaty process, if the Cabinet is given sole discretion. Such a situation is clearly in violation of the spirit of the charter, and the law.

If the Assembly voted on a treaty, one could reasonably make the argument that the bulk Local Council votes would advocate for the game-side nations. However, allowing officials who are not elected by the game-side community, the sole authority to dissolve treaties and thereby reshape the in-game region, is clearly in violation of the idea of allowing the game-side community a say in their self-governance.