Motion to vote.

Reply

Motion to vote.

Second.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

(This post was last modified: 01-01-2015, 07:55 PM by Nhalok.)

Reply

That took all of two hours...Good job, guys.

The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN)
Provost, Magisterium
Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army
Journalist, East Pacific News Service
Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

Reply

Any chance we can get an addition to section one dealing with constitutional successor governments?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Any chance we can get an addition to section one dealing with constitutional successor governments?

My assumption was that any legal, successor government would be included in the first part of section one. But, I'll defer to Raven here.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I had originally suggested such a clause, mindful of what happened between Osiris-TSP, Osiris-TNP, Osiris-Equilism when their Government was dissolved in October 2013. In this case however, we agreed that in the event the Coalition is dissolved, then TNP and TSP would need to meet and discuss the treaty. r3n was concerned that such a clause could tie TNP into supporting a regime which had managed to seize power in the region and had dissolved the Coalition and vice versa for TSP. It was not a concern I'd thought of before I told that it was possible for the clause to be abused in such a manner.

[Image: R3G1C7X.gif]  [Image: aPo7ydn.png?1] [Image: R3G1C7X.gif]

(This post was last modified: 01-02-2015, 09:24 PM by Aramanchovia.)

Reply

I would certainly hope that our alies wouldn't just recognise any group that "dissolved" the Coalition, right?

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

Reply

It was felt that such a clause could be abused too easily and that mandating each side to recognise successor governments could end badly. As it stands the treaty is fine as it is in my opinion. I'm not going to talk about "what ifs", as this is very much a likely non issue.

[Image: R3G1C7X.gif]  [Image: aPo7ydn.png?1] [Image: R3G1C7X.gif]

Reply

I would certainly hope that our alies wouldn't just recognise any group that "dissolved" the Coalition, right?

If I'm reading everything correctly, the concern is that they wouldn't want to, but depending on how the phrasing is written (and how our laws are written/change) they might be legally bound to. Hence why the clause wasn't included.

Correct?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

My point is, any group that took control of the region would never be a legal successor to the Coalition, unless that happened following our legal and constitutional mechanisms.

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

Reply