(10-20-2016, 11:50 PM)Omega Wrote:

(10-20-2016, 11:45 PM)Anapol Wrote:

Quote:(1) A treaty will be dissolved if the Cabinet reports to the Assembly that a signatory to the treaty has violated its terms. The dissolution report must include detailed evidence, which will be up for a commenting period in the Assembly for one week before the dissolution is legally binding.

What happens if the Cabinet disagrees on whether a signatory to the treaty has violated its terms? Does the cabinet have to unanimously agree that the terms have been violated?

First off welcome to the Assembly.
Second, off I think a smart thing would be if a majority of the Cabinet including the MoFA and/or the MoMA agrees that it has been violated. But generally it is pretty obvious.

Thank you for the welcome. In response to your comments, I edited some elaboration into my original post.

If the Executive dissolves a treaty, does it count as an executive order? Neither the charter nor this act gives any indication that it wouldn't be. Regardless whether it is or not, I can imagine plausible scenarios where not attaining unanimous approval before submitting a report to the assembly could be a problem. For example, a cabinet member could be involved with the region we're dissolving a treaty with. Given their perspective, they could be utterly convinced that the treaty wasn't violated, and thus unwilling to endorse the report. Then they have an avenue to question the legality of how the Cabinet conducted the dissolution.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Military Affairs - both influential leaders whose jobs involve the ramifications of a treaty - could also disagree about whether a treaty was violated. Perhaps an officer in an ally's military participates in a coalition mission against a TSP mission, but there's disagreement over whether the treaty was broken because that leader could be, depending on one's interpretation, representing a non-allied region. The Army Minister could be convinced that they broke the treaty, while the Foreign Affairs minister could feel totally opposite. Let's say the PM and Delegate 100% agree with the MoMA, but the Minister of Regional Affairs sides with MoFA. What happens then?

Politically, I'd expect that the MoFA would take heavy scrutiny for disagreeing with the cabinet. Typically, he or should would likely resign. But if he or she was stubborn, they might have to be removed by a vote. In that case, I think even moderate amounts of ambiguity about what's needed to dissolve a treaty could unnecessarily cause drama and create a harmful schism.