The Aurora Alliance, TNP-TSP Treaty Amendment. |
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
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
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.
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
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.
(01-02-2015, 09:40 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: 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]
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 |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |