Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 10-16-2016, 01:51 PM

Given the results of the last competing bills vote, it's clear neither has the required support to pass even alone. That's because both are being proposed as Charter amendments, which require a supermajority. After some research, it's my judgement that it's not actually necessary to amend the Charter to solve this issue, or make this a constitutional matter at all. By writing a general law, we only need a simple majority to pass a bill. This will end the gridlock on this issue, one way or another, because both at least had majority support on the last vote.

Quote:
Treaties Act
An act defining the Cabinet’s treaty powers

1. Assembly Ratification

(1) Upon the receipt of a treaty by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Assembly will debate the proposed treaty for at least five days before any vote is held.

(2) Amendments to existing treaties must be ratified under the same protocols as original treaties.

2. Treaty Dissolution and Repeal

(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.

(2) If a signatory to a treaty notifies the Cabinet that they have dissolved the treaty on their end, the Cabinet will swiftly notify the Assembly. The treaty will be dissolved automatically upon Assembly notification.

(3) Should the Cabinet wish to dissolve a treaty for reasons other than the violation of its terms, they must notify the Assembly. The Assembly will debate for at least five days, and then vote on its repeal. Should a vote on its repeal pass with majority support, the treaty will be dissolved officially, and the signatory notified promptly.

3. Supremacy Clause

The terms of the Charter and of this Act are held supreme over terms found within a treaty. No treaty may contradict or violate the laws of the Coalition.

(This post was last modified: 10-16-2016, 01:54 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Seraph** · 10-16-2016, 01:59 PM

I think this is a much more elegant solution to the problem at hand and you've laid our a variety of different reasons for treaty dissolution with, I believe, reasonable responses to each, including situations where it would be entirely appropriate for the Assembly to have a full vote on the matter.

I'm sure there are areas for disagreement and revision, so I very much doubt I'm looking at the absolute, final version, but what I see here removes much of the uncertainty I felt in the previous conflicting legislation and I would be willing to give it my full support.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

Omega · 10-16-2016, 02:43 PM

As this is a continuation of a previous debate as soon as we have a motion and second I can bring this to vote.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

**Belschaft** · 10-16-2016, 03:07 PM

This proposed act addresses all my concerns with the previously proposed legislation, and broadly reflects the principles and intent of the version drafted by DM and myself. As such I'm willing to withdraw that version and sign on to this one, assuming that DM has no issues with doing so.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Ryccia · 10-16-2016, 06:46 PM

I see intelligence on this proposal.

According to my logic, this is a compromise of sorts. This is a compromise that keeps both groups happy. Full support, Glen. Full support

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Drugged Monkeys · 10-17-2016, 06:32 AM

(10-16-2016, 03:07 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This proposed act addresses all my concerns with the previously proposed legislation, and broadly reflects the principles and intent of the version drafted by DM and myself. As such I'm willing to withdraw that version and sign on to this one, assuming that DM has no issues with doing so.

Aye. I agree as well that this version looks much better. Full Support.

Semi-Unretired

Altmoras · 10-17-2016, 07:55 PM

A succinct and relatively simple solution to the treaty debacle, support.

***Roavin*** · 10-19-2016, 04:38 PM

Debate for months and then Glen just whips out this beauty. Happywide

Very fond of this version - it addresses the concerns of the Awe/Tsu version, presents a better compromise than the Bel/DM version, and is just generally done beautifully.

Motion to vote.

**Seraph** · 10-19-2016, 04:45 PM

Since we all seem to be on the same, beautiful page on this: Second.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

~~Anapol~~ · 10-20-2016, 11:45 PM

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.

I have two points on this.

First, 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? The charter says unanimous approval is necessary for executive orders, but I don't know if dissolving a treaty counts as an executive order if we establish an instrument for it.

Second, I'm confused about the function, or lack thereof, of the commenting period. It's common diplomatic practice to have a buffer period before a treaty is officially dissolved. Is the period before the dissolution is "legally binding" a nod to that practice, or an allowance for the Cabinet to retract their dissolution? One interpretation of this act's writing is that we can abort the dissolution process, while another is that the week-long delay of dissolution is just common diplomatic/logistical courtesy.

I think this section of the act demands more clarity before we vote on it.

(This post was last modified: 10-21-2016, 12:02 AM by Anapol. Edit Reason: Elaboration. )