Users browsing this thread:

~~Cormac~~ · 04-02-2017, 10:31 PM

Escade has recently appointed me as TSP's liaison to the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN). Since being appointed and masked as a representative, I've been looking into the current status of CAIN to update the Assembly, as Belschaft requested some time ago.

The TL;DR version of what's going on with CAIN is that signatory representatives are considering an amendment to the CAIN Charter that no longer includes the bureaucratic structure in the previous amendment, which was determined to have been illegal by the Attorney General of Europeia due to the absence of quorum. This new amendment seeks to address flaws in the Charter by cleaning up its language. Specifically, the amendment seeks to fix flaws in the quorum and amendment processes, though there are other, more minor alterations to clean up the Charter's language. The thinking here is to fix the existing flaws in the Charter before moving forward with discussion of how to structurally improve CAIN, i.e., new discussion of whether to create a bureaucracy, as well as discussions regarding transparency and the definition of Nazi Collaborators.

The original Charter can be found here. A mark-up of changes this amendment would make to the original Charter is available here.

I'm presenting this amendment for discussion and suggestions, but it has not yet been voted on by signatory representatives and thus should not yet be brought to vote in the Assembly. Suggestions are therefore more than welcome, as there is still time for me to take them back to CAIN for consideration before signatory representatives vote on this amendment and send it to signatory regions for ratification.

Quote:Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN)

We, the undersigned governments are mindful of the impact Nazism has on the community we all share. We are committed to overcoming gameplay differences to make the NationStates community more accessible. In pursuit of these goals, we establish and join the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism ("CAIN"), and agree to recognize and adhere to this treaty.

1. Definitions

Nazism: The ideology and practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state, as well as other ideologically related groups. In the context of NationStates, it is an ideology that includes advocating the practice of Nazi beliefs or glorifying National Socialism or Nazi Germany.

Nazi Region: A region recognized by CAIN as a region that practices Nazism.

Nazi Collaborator: A region recognized by CAIN as a region that assists in furthering the agenda of Nazism or Nazi Regions.

Signatories: The regions and organizations that sign this treaty.

On-Site Embassy: An embassy created through NationStates.

Off-Site Embassy: An embassy created on the off-site forum of a region.

Inter-regional Agreement: Any treaty, accord, pact, or other agreement with another region recognized by a signatory's government as legally binding.

Military Assistance: Participation in raiding, defending, delegate transfer assistance, or any other military action in NationStates with the intention of benefiting another region.

Host Forum: The forum selected by the signatories according to sections 2(a) and 2(b).

2. Forum Selection

(a) The initial host forum will be a dedicated area of the Europeian off-site forums.

(b) The signatories may change the host forum with a two-thirds majority vote.

3. Procedural Matters

(a) Each signatory will receive one vote in all matters considered by the signatories. A signatory’s vote will be cast by the highest executive authority of that signatory, or a representative selected according to that signatory’s internal processes. Each signatory may assign a second representative, who can contribute to debate but may not vote.

(b) All votes of the signatories will be announced at least one week in advance, unless otherwise specified in this treaty.

© All votes will be open for five days, unless otherwise specified in this treaty.

(d) In all votes, a quorum of at least one half of the signatories must vote or otherwise indicate their presence during the five-day period that the vote is open.

(e) If circumstances require a quick decision on a matter, the timing requirements of 3(b) and 3© may be waived if a motion to that effect receives the support of at least five signatories. If such a motion is submitted, a good faith method must be made to notify all signatories of the accelerated vote before the voting period closes.

(f) The votes mentioned in this treaty shall take place on the Host Forum in an area restricted to legal representatives of signatories and administrators of the Host Forum.

4. Membership Administration

(a) Invitations to join CAIN will be issued to all regions that vote to approve this document in an initial vote.

(b) A region wishing to become a signatory of CAIN after the initial vote must first submit an application including the recommendation of at least two signatories. A majority vote of the signatories will be required to approve an application. If an application is approved, the region will receive an invitation to join.

© In order to be recognized as a signatory, regions must ratify this treaty in accordance with their internal laws within one month of receiving an invitation, after which, the invitation will expire and a new invitation must be obtained if the region still wishes to join CAIN. Once ratified, regions must send a legal representative to signify their acceptance of this treaty in the Host Forum.

(d) Any signatory may submit a petition to have another signatory removed. If the petition is approved by a three-fourths vote of the signatories, the signatory that is the subject of the petition will cease to be a signatory. This will not prevent any region from re-applying to become a signatory using the procedure provided in 4(b).

5. Functions of CAIN

(a) The Host Forum will include the master copy of this treaty in an area that is publicly accessible.

(b) A document will be appended to the treaty listing Standardized Responses which signatories are encouraged but not required to use in the intended circumstances. This document may be amended by a motion receiving majority support.

© The circumstances for which a Standardized Response shall be listed will include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i) A Nazi Region acting militarily against a signatory,
(ii) A Nazi Region participating within a military operation of a non-Nazi Region, and
(iii) A Signatory acting militarily against a Nazi Region.

(d) The Host Forum will maintain a list of all officially designated Nazi Regions and Nazi Collaborators alongside the master copy of the CAIN treaty.

6. Rights and Duties of Membership

(a) Signatories will not maintain off-site or on-site embassies with Nazi Regions.

(b) Signatories will not enter into inter-regional agreements with Nazi Regions.

© Signatories will not provide military assistance to any region officially designated as a Nazi Region.

(d) Signatories commit to working together, when consistent with internal policy, to oppose Nazi Regions through military means. This commitment includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Invading Nazi holdings,
(ii) Liberating regions raided by Nazi Regions, and
(iii) Defending against raids involving Nazi Regions.

(e) Signatories commit to working together, when consistent with internal policy, to oppose Nazi Regions through Security Council means. This commitment includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Opposing commendation proposals of Nazi regions and players,
(ii) Cooperation on condemnation proposals of Nazi regions and players,
(iii) Supporting defensive liberation proposals for regions raided by Nazis, and
(iv) Supporting offensive liberation proposals against Nazi Regions.

(f) Any signatory may nominate a region that meets the definition, as described by this treaty, to be a Nazi Region. Such nominations must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the signatories before being officially designated as such by CAIN.

(g) Any signatory may nominate a region that meets the definition, as described by this treaty, to be considered a Nazi Collaborator. Such nominations must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the signatories before being officially designated as such by CAIN.

(h) Any region which voluntarily participates in a military operation alongside, or possesses an on-site embassy with, a Nazi Region shall be officially designated a Nazi Collaborator.

(i) Any region officially designated as a Nazi Collaborator shall be subjected to Sections 6(a)-(e) as if it was designated a Nazi region.

(j) Any region may be removed from the officially designated list of Nazi Regions or Nazi Collaborators by a vote of three-fourths of the signatories.

7. General Provisions

(a) Signatories recognize that signing this treaty does not make them allies of the other signatories.

(b) Signatories recognize that signing this treaty does not signify political, diplomatic, or gameplay agreement with their fellow signatories except on the subject of Nazism and Nazi Regions.

© To the extent allowed by a signatory’s internal laws, this treaty is considered legally binding upon completion of the requirements described in Section 4©.

(d) Should a region wish to resign as a signatory of CAIN, it may do so by going through the process of withdrawing from this treaty in accordance with its internal laws and disseminating a public notice of withdrawal. Such notices must be released in a way that reaches a majority of signatories.

(e) This treaty may be amended by a three-fourths vote of the signatories. Such amendments must then be ratified by the duly authorized entities of the signatories according to their internal law and will not be considered binding until at least two-thirds of the signatories have ratified the amendment. Once two-thirds of signatories have ratified an amendment, the remaining signatories will have two weeks to ratify the amendment. If they fail to do so, they will no longer be considered signatories. Notification will be provided to all signatories after the initial vote and once the two-thirds ratification mark has been reached.

(f) Any signatory may opt-out of ratifying an amendment to CAIN. After doing so, it will no longer be considered a signatory unless an exception is granted by a three-fourths vote of the other signatories.

(g) Any signatories that miss two votes consecutively will have their signatory status suspended until such time that they request to be returned to active status. During this suspension, they will not be counted as a signatory for clauses mentioned in this treaty.

8. Enactment

On ratification, this treaty will replace all previous versions of CAIN.

(This post was last modified: 04-05-2017, 08:59 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 04-03-2017, 01:43 PM

This draft is certainly better than the previous one.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 04-03-2017, 08:44 PM

We have had discussions about CAIN here -> http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4804.html

We never got around to voting on whether to stay on or not.

Perhaps we can restart the discussion here. What are your thoughts on the new draft? What are your thoughts on working with CAIN as an ally and a member or only as an ally but not a member?

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

~~Cormac~~ · 04-03-2017, 08:49 PM

(04-03-2017, 08:44 PM)Escade Wrote: We have had discussions about CAIN here -> http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4804.html

We never got around to voting on whether to stay on or not.

Perhaps we can restart the discussion here. What are your thoughts on the new draft? What are your thoughts on working with CAIN as an ally and a member or only as an ally but not a member?

I think it would be better for us to remain in CAIN and work with the other signatories, particularly Europeia, to fix it and get it running smoothly. For me, the biggest reason to stay in is because CAIN isn't asking us to do anything we wouldn't already be doing -- TSP has engaged in anti-fascist operations for years -- and our ally, Europeia, has a strong stake in CAIN's success. Withdrawing could just further strain relations with Europeia that have already been strained in recent years. Conversely, remaining in CAIN and working with Europeia and others to improve it could improve our relations with Europeia as well as opening the door to new friends and allies. It is a great opportunity to pursue common ground between regions that otherwise wouldn't have much in common.

There really isn't anything about CAIN that has been detrimental to TSP. It hasn't exactly been functional, but that hasn't been hurting TSP or our image, and working to improve CAIN can only help us. I don't see much downside to remaining in CAIN and working to improve it.

This is not to say that there aren't problems with CAIN. There are. But CAIN has no problems that can't be fixed by bright people here and elsewhere putting real effort into fixing those problems. It would be better for our diplomatic standing for TSP to be involved in fixing CAIN than for TSP to withdraw.

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017, 08:53 PM by Cormac.)

**Rebeltopia** · 04-03-2017, 09:10 PM

Cormac - DISCORD #legislators-lounge channel Wrote:For me, the biggest reason to try to make CAIN work, at present, is that withdrawing would be likely to further strain relations with Europeia that have already been somewhat strained in the past, because Europeia places a high priority on CAIN.

This bothers me a bit. We shouldn't be staying in this treaty for the sake of relations with another region. While I'm quite fond of Euro, staying in CAIN for the soul purpose of "repairing" relations with them isn't any reason at all. If we want to repair relations with Euro, then we should contact Euro (which, from my conversation with Escade, she intends on doing).

As for CAIN itself... Ive never been a fan of multi-lateral treaties, and I dont think this one is any better.

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

~~Cormac~~ · 04-03-2017, 09:16 PM

(04-03-2017, 09:10 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: This bothers me a bit. We shouldn't be staying in this treaty for the sake of relations with another region. While I'm quite fond of Euro, staying in CAIN for the soul purpose of "repairing" relations with them isn't any reason at all. If we want to repair relations with Euro, then we should contact Euro (which, from my conversation with Escade, she intends on doing).

As for CAIN itself... Ive never been a fan of multi-lateral treaties, and I dont think this one is any better.

Can you point to some harm that CAIN is doing to TSP or our diplomatic standing?

It's all well and good to say that we should repair relations with Europeia -- and in case anyone still hasn't heard, I'm not even a fan of Europeia -- by simply contacting them. Yes, obviously, we should do that. But it's still likely to have a detrimental impact on our relations with them if we withdraw from a project in which they have significantly invested time and resources, without much reason for withdrawing besides we don't like multilateral treaties. Whether we like multilateral treaties or not, we did already agree to this one, and absent a very compelling reason for withdrawal we should stick with it and try to make it work. We don't want to be seen as flaky by allies and potential allies. Cutting and running from a commitment without trying to make it work is flaky.

The primary objective of CAIN is to take on Nazi regions and regions that collaborate with them. This is something TSP would already be doing. Why would we not stick with CAIN and try to make it work? If it's just aversion to multilateral treaties, we need to get over that in this case, because that is not good enough reason to withdraw from a project to which we already agreed. We were obviously comfortable enough with this multilateral treaty when we agreed to it.

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017, 09:22 PM by Cormac.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-03-2017, 09:25 PM

I don't think the Assembly passed CAIN despite it being a multilateral treaty as much as simply because everyone can agree to fight Nazis, and TSP wouldn't be the region to seem like it opposed that.

For the record, as a longtime opponent of CAIN, I agree with Rebeltopia.

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

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017, 09:26 PM by Kris Kringle.)

~~Cormac~~ · 04-03-2017, 09:29 PM

(04-03-2017, 09:25 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I don't think the Assembly passed CAIN despite it being a multilateral treaty as much as simply because everyone can agree to fight Nazis, and TSP wouldn't be the region to seem like it opposed that.

For the record, as a longtime opponent of CAIN, I agree with Rebeltopia.

It is, of course, entirely the Assembly's prerogative to further strain relations with Europeia because we don't like multilateral treaties. I just don't recommend that course of action. Eventually we may actually need some of these alliances we keep neglecting or actively damaging.

Still waiting to hear some harm CAIN is doing to TSP or our diplomatic standing. Or any compelling reason to withdraw at all.

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017, 09:32 PM by Cormac.)

Escade · 04-03-2017, 10:01 PM

Regardless of how much has changed since the last discussion, it makes sense to talk about CAIN and what TSP has, is or wants to do specifically in terms of working towards the shared goal.

As in other FA situations, I'd recommend not ending things unilaterally or without trying to see what if anything can benefit us or change for us. To that end I will be talking to the Euro FA people about CAIN asap.

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

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-03-2017, 10:17 PM

(04-03-2017, 09:29 PM)Cormac Wrote: It is, of course, entirely the Assembly's prerogative to further strain relations with Europeia because we don't like multilateral treaties.

If I may ask, what exactly will it take to "make things right" with Europeia? I ask because, at this point, it feels like, whatever we do, it's not enough. We get along just fine with Lazarus and the Rejected Realms, seem to have decent relations with Spiritus and the North Pacific, but for some reason things are always strained with Europeia. What exactly will it take?

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

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017, 10:17 PM by Kris Kringle.)