Your honour, considering the recent actions of the Cabinet, I must submit the following legal questions;

"Does the Cabinet have the legal authority to dissolve a treaty without the approval of the Assembly?"

"Does the Cabinet have the legal authority to assert a power not explicitly granted in the Charter?"

---

The Charter addresses treaty matters in a number of locations, and makes certain specific grants of power to the Cabinet in regards to treaties. Article VI, Clauses 6 through 8, deals with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and reads as following;

Quote:6. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be the Coalition’s chief diplomat. They will be responsible for establishing the government’s foreign policy program, communicating with allies, and coordinating with the military on foreign policy priorities when necessary.

7. The Minister of Foreign Affairs holds the sole power to initiate treaty negotiations with other regions, groups, and organizations, but may designate officers to handle those negotiations. Upon completion of a treaty negotiation, the Minister must present it to the full executive for majority approval, before submitting it to the Assembly for ratification.

8. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for establishing standards for the creation and maintenance of consulates and embassies.

This constitutes an explicit grant of powers to the cabinet, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular, in regards to treaties. It should be noted that this grant of powers does not include the dissolution of treaties, but is limited to their negotiation. Further, upon such negotiation, the Cabinet is explicitly required to present proposed treaties to the assembly for ratification. It is only once the Assembly has provided such ratification that the treaty becomes lawful and legally binding, and absent such ratification any agreement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is null and void.

This clearly indicates two things; firstly, that the Assembly, when adopting the Charter, considered the issue of treaties and chose to grant certain powers to the Cabinet. Having made this explicit and limited grant of powers, the Assembly did chose not to include in this treaty dissolution. No argument of an implicit grant of powers can be made when there has an explicit grant of powers; an explicit grant of powers having been made, only those powers exist. I do not believe that this can be disputed; the Assembly has chosen not to grant the Cabinet the powers the Minister of Foreign Affairs has tried to assert.

Secondly, by requiring Assembly ratification, the Charter makes clear that the Assembly is the final arbiter of treaty matters. No proposed treaty can become law without the Assembly's approval; by stating such in the section of the Charter that makes grants of powers to the Cabinet, the Assembly has made clear that it reserves certain powers to itself. It thus cannot be argued that the Cabinet is the sole responsible authority in this matter.

This reservation of powers is made clear once again in Article IV, Clause 6, of the Charter;

Quote:6. All general laws, resolutions, and treaty ratifications must be passed by a simple majority of those voting. Laws marked as constitutional laws, or resolutions that deal with issues found in constitutional laws, require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass. Appointments, unless otherwise specified, require a simple majority of those voting. Votes are held for a minimum of 3 days, except for votes on constitutional law which are held for a minimum of 5 days.

The Assembly, once again, clearly reserved for itself the power of treaty ratification when adopting the Charter. This is yet again proof that the Assembly has granted the Cabinet only limited powers over treaties. Further to this, in Article IV, Clause 1, the Assembly made the following declaration;

Quote:1. The Assembly holds supreme legislative authority in the Coalition, and is comprised of all eligible legislators and a representative of the Local Council. It is responsible for establishing and maintaining the legal code of the Coalition.

By declaring that it holds supreme legislative authority, the Charter is explicit that no other body has the power or authority to undo or contradict it's legislative actions. This is an unambiguous clause; the Assembly is the only body with legislative power in TSP. That legislative power extends to treaties, which only enter force when ratified by a vote of the Assembly. Treaties have legal binding force in TSP because of that Assembly ratification - they are, in effect, a law binding TSP and the other signatories, agreed between both regions. Whilst obviously distinct from general laws, they require the same Assembly approval and have the same binding force.

It is established, both in the Charter and long precedent, that the Assembly is the sole legislative authority. Only the Assembly has the power to amend, alter or dissolve it's legislative acts. A treaty is a legislative act of the Assembly. Thus only the Assembly can dissolve a Treaty.

---

A second argument can be made in relation to ambiguity; the Charter, whilst reserving the power of treaty ratification to the Assembly, does not make a similar explicit reservation for treaty dissolution. I believe that I have presented the legal case for why such is not necessary above - treaties being a legislative act of the Assembly and thus subject only to the Assembly - but I acknowledge the potential for ambiguity.

Article VI, Clauses 11 through 12, deals with issues of ambiguity;

Quote:11. The executive may exercise the collective authority of executive orders, by unanimous consent among the Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Executive orders may only be issued to address an immediate and pressing issue created by ambiguity or holes in a particular law, which will immediately have the effect of law. 

12. Upon declaring an executive order, the order will be presented automatically to the Assembly for three days of debate, followed by a vote according to legislative rules, where it will expire and its effects be reversed if the Assembly does not incorporate it into law.

These clauses make an explicit grant of power to the Cabinet for situations where there is ambiguity in the law; they also establish a clear procedure that must be followed in this situation. It is clear from this clause that the Cabinet may only assume powers not granted to it explicitly via executive order, and that such executive orders musty receive the approval of the Assembly to acquire legal power. This is yet another example of the limited powers of the Cabinet, and further evidence of the fact that such powers stem from the Assembly.

There is no executive order, either proposed or in force, which grants the Cabinet the power to dissolve treaties. There is no explicit grant of these powers in the Charter, or any other section of regional law. As such, we have no other option but to conclude that the Cabinet does not have this power.

---

Your honour, having demonstrated beyond any possible question that the Cabinet is not granted the power to dissolve treaties in the Charter, and that further to this that they have no legal authority to assert further powers without an Assembly approved Executive Order, I must ask that you immediately strike down these illegal actions of the Cabinet.