On February 19, the Founder, President, and WA Delegate of Spiritus jointly decided to dissolve the Elemental Republic of Spiritus under the Constitution of Spiritus and to initiate a constitutional convention. Neither this dissolution nor initiation of the constitutional convention complied with the constitutional process for amending the Constitution of Spiritus, which is as follows:

56. The Regional Assembly shall have the power to propose amendments to this Constitution by a two-thirds supermajority vote.

57. Any amendment proposed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Regional Assembly shall then go before the citizens of Spiritus in a referendum. If approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the citizens of Spiritus the amendment shall be ratified.

Our treaty obligation under the Lampshade Accords could not be more clear:

1.2 The South Pacific recognises the Elemental Republic of Spiritus under the Constitution of Spiritus as the legitimate government of Spiritus and resolves to recognise any legally enacted successor government.

My question is simple: Is the Cabinet going to honor our treaty obligation, or is the Cabinet going to do as some have suggested on Discord and recognize a clearly illegal government as a "legally enacted successor government"?

Let me be clear on a few things that don't matter, since they will come up. It doesn't matter if there isn't any opposition to this decision. It doesn't matter if this is best for Spiritus. It doesn't matter that the region is a user-created region with a Founder. All that matters is what the South Pacific agreed to do, which is recognize a specific government under a specific constitution, or a new government created only in compliance with the terms of that constitution, as the legitimate government of Spiritus. Nothing else matters.

If we believe what Spiritus is doing is okay because of the supposedly dire circumstances of their inactivity, that is a separate question. We can repeal the Lampshade Accords, explain to the interim government why we're doing that and that we are open to the possibility of a new treaty in the future, and negotiate a new treaty with the new government if it proves to be the kind of government that would make a desirable ally. What we absolutely should not do is jump through some kind of Orwellian, Balderesque hoops to declare that up is actually down, right is actually left, black is actually white, and an illegal government is actually a legal successor government. That will set a terrible precedent and undermine, even if only in a small way, the South Pacific's role as a champion of democracy and the rule of law.

Reply

Considering how we might react if another region were to engage in this kind of action (dissolve a legal government) or in the case of TSP, having had more than a few forum controversies, I think this might be a good opportunity to set a precedent.

Many of us like Spiritus as a region and the people in the region and highly regard them. I personally adore many people from Spiritus.

However, it may behoove us to follow our own laws and renegotiate a treaty. We may also, if both sides choose to do so, amend the treaty. I don't think we need to repeal, just amend from both sides.

Before taking any sort of rash action we also may want to monitor the process of the new government as it unfolds.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

(This post was last modified: 02-24-2017, 09:26 PM by Escade.)

Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge there is no opposition to this Constitutional Convention in Spiritus? If so, why on earth would we want to make an issue of this?

_{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

I think renegotiating the treaty with the new government, once it's established, and provided it proves to be a desirable ally, would be reasonable. But we should repeal the current Lampshade Accords, rather than granting any recognition to this government -- even recognition as a negotiating partner -- while the Lampshade Accords prohibit us from doing that.

I'm sure if we explain to them why we need to repeal the Lampshade Accords, there won't be any bad blood or burned bridges. If it's explained to them that it has more to do with our own precedent and traditions, and nothing to do with condemning their decisions, I don't see how it could be a problem.

Reply

Or we allow the treaty to stand as is and discuss it with them when there's another government in place.

Since there isn't a resistance and it doesn't appear anyone is fighting against this ... it doesn't make sense to repeal it.

In fact, I'd argue that we have a moral obligation to help our allies set up a new democracy. It's been roughly a year since we did ours ... perhaps we should offer our legal help.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Or we allow the treaty to stand as is and discuss it with them when there's another government in place.

Since there isn't a resistance and it doesn't appear anyone is fighting against this ... it doesn't make sense to repeal it.

In fact, I'd argue that we have a moral obligation to help our allies set up a new democracy. It's been roughly a year since we did ours ... perhaps we should offer our legal help.

That is an option, if we want to make the South Pacific look incredibly hypocritical, and set a terrible precedent that could be manipulated by a future Cabinet for less positive purposes.

I'm not seeing any reason to do that though.

Reply

Because no one in Spiritus objects to what has happened?

_{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

Or we allow the treaty to stand as is and discuss it with them when there's another government in place.

Since there isn't a resistance and it doesn't appear anyone is fighting against this ... it doesn't make sense to repeal it.

In fact, I'd argue that we have a moral obligation to help our allies set up a new democracy. It's been roughly a year since we did ours ... perhaps we should offer our legal help.

That is an option, if we want to make the South Pacific look incredibly hypocritical, and set a terrible precedent that could be manipulated by a future Cabinet for less positive purposes.

I'm not seeing any reason to do that though.

Where is TSP looking "incredibly hypocritical"? What am I missing?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Because no one in Spiritus objects to what has happened?

That doesn't matter. What matters is that we have a treaty obligation to recognize only the Elemental Republic of Spiritus or a legally enacted successor government as the legitimate government of Spiritus.

No one is saying we shouldn't negotiate a new treaty with the new government, so I don't understand the problem. It seems like some folks would just like to cut corners, and in the process make the South Pacific look hypocritical and set bad policy precedent, for the sake of convenience.

Where is TSP looking "incredibly hypocritical"? What am I missing?

Don't you think it's a touch hypocritical to insist upon democracy and the rule of law, and criticize other regions -- like Balder -- for playing fast and loose with democracy and the rule of law in regard to their treaty obligation to us, and then turn around and do that ourselves for the sake of convenience? Because I do.

(This post was last modified: 02-24-2017, 09:51 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

Where is TSP looking "incredibly hypocritical"? What am I missing?

Don't you think it's a touch hypocritical to insist upon democracy and the rule of law, and criticize other regions -- like Balder -- for playing fast and loose with democracy and the rule of law in regard to their treaty obligation to us, and then turn around and do that ourselves for the sake of convenience? Because I do.

No because you're overlooking the fact that is Spiritus there isn't a resistance. 

I think Glen is the only one arguing that Balder broke our treaty. That's certainly not the position of the government and/or the Assembly at the moment.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply