| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2204.HQ] Assent of the CRS |
|
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION I, Farengeto, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Assent of the CRS ARGUMENT Under Article 3, Section 1 of the Border Control Act, the following is specified: 3. Powers of the Local Council and Delegate (1) The Delegate, or a majority of the Local Council, may order a border control action against a nation they determine to be spammers or trolls. The assent of the Council on Regional Security is required if the nation in question is not a low influence nation. While the law and precedent are now relatively established for the case of low influence nations, and the definition of low influence nations is clearly defined in Article 1, Section 2, the case for nations who are not low influence is less clear. What counts as CRS assent is not defined and can be ambiguous. I first noted this issue during the ban of "Colonla" on March 31st, 2021. The user was flaming several members and government officials on the RMB, and a ban was requested by the majority of the Local Council. However, upon noticing that they were not low influence, this question came up. At the time, myself and Penguin - currently both the Delegate, the other entity empowered under Article 3, Section 1, and a member of the CRS - both unanimously assented to the ban and went ahead with it in the interest of restoring order and civility on the RMB, however, the issue of what qualifies as assent - and by extension whether that ban was technically legal - remains a concern. REQUEST What qualifies as "the assent of the Council on Regional Security" under Article 3, Section 1 of the Border Control Act Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2204.HQ] ASSENT OF THE CRS SUBMISSION 31 MAR 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2204.HQ REFERENCE NAME Assent of the CRS QUESTION What qualifies as "the assent of the Council on Regional Security" under Article 3, Section 1 of the Border Control Act? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2204.HQ.NR | Issued 31 Mar 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2204.HQ] ASSENT OF THE CRS SUBMISSION 31 MAR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 01 APR 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is not found justiciable. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR AN IN-CHAMBERS OPINION Interested parties may request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination no later than . It is so ordered.
2204.HQ.DJ | Issued 01 Apr 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your Honor,
I would like to request an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination. From my perspective, knowing what constitutes a collective determination of a government body, especially a powerful and important one such as the Council on Regional Security, requires a direct answer. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense ![[Image: rank_general.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/rank_general.min.svg){kind=icon} ![[Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/updates_lifetime_3.min.svg) ![[Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/detags_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: ykXEqbU.png]](https://imgur.com/ykXEqbU.png)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2204.HQ] ASSENT OF THE CRS SUBMISSION 31 MAR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 01 APR 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to explain the reasons for the dismissal of this case, the Court explains as follows: While the question as posed is reasonable enough, there is little accompanying context that could assist the Court in ascertaining what the term 'assent' would mean for the purposes of Article 3, Section 1 of the Border Control Act. The law is clear in other cases, for example when it requires "a majority of the Local Council"1 to order a border control action, however, no such clarity is given when it comes to how the Council on Regional Security should give its assent. In that sense, the best that the Court could do is quote the dictionary definition of the term 'assent'. It is the view of the Court that the mechanism, at least in this particular matter, is best left to be treated as a matter of internal procedure at the discretion of the Council on Regional Security, rather than as a matter of judicial interpretation. For the reasons exposed above, the question is not found justiciable. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Border Control Act; Article 3, Section 1 (2021). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. 2204.HQ.IO | Issued 03 Apr 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |