| Members of the Coalition |
The Court acknowledges your example, but if it is taken to its logical conclusion, if a member in good standing suddenly decides to commit crimes and ignore our laws, would your argument lead to them being stripped of their rights, and thus lack a right to face trial?
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 is compliance with our laws and good faith presence in the region which transforms physical residency into legal residency, and with it all the rights of a resident. Once gained those rights should be sacrosanct, but those never in compliance with the law or acting in bad faith cannot be considered to have gained them.
The real world comparison is that between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant. Physical presence cannot be the sole determining factor of legal residency. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
The Court appreciates the clarification, and extents its regards and well wishes.
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
The Court would like to extend an invitation to Belschaft to answer the following questions:
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
Your honour,
1. Petitioner is reluctant to suggest such, but would be inclined to believe that in most cases this would be a relatively simple matter; ie; are they flying the flag of a foreign region, are they endorsing TSP officials or an invading point nation, etc. 2. The possibility that laws be abused by officials acting in bad faith always exists; this does not effect what the law is, though it may effect how the assembly writes laws. 3. Petitioner does not feel that a "harm" judgement is relevant to the question of legal determination, nor can such hypothetical harms be easily weighed. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
The Court appreciates the clarification and thanks you for being gracious enough to entertain these questions.
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
In compliance with Article 3 of the Determination of Justiciability, the Court will stop receiving amicus curiae briefs and actively questioning individuals over their contents. The Court will still welcome relevant contributions from individuals, and will consider them in its reasoning, but its focus will now be on drafting the final version of its ruling.
The Court extends its thanks to all those who contributed with their own amicus curiae briefs, and in particular to those who participated in oral argument. 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
I would like to break character for a moment to apologise for the delay in producing the ruling for this case. This week I have had the birthdays of several relatives, so most of my post-work time has been spent with my family. I will announce a date for the release of the ruling later this weekend.
Thank you for your understanding. 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
For Immediate Release
27 August 2017 The Court provides notice to the general public that the ruling on HCLQ1708: Members of the Coalition will be released on 02 September 2017 at 13:00 EST. The Court will thereafter entertain questions and doubts regarding the legal reasoning expressed in its ruling, and the process it followed in the consideration of the legal question, but it will not consider questions regarding the political ramifications of the same, nor will it express opinions of a political nature on any other unrelated subject. 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
Petitioner
Summary of the Ruling
It is the opinion of the Court that membership requires a combination of physical presence in either the region or the forum and a reasonable display of good faith. An initial reading of the law would support the argument for extending membership to all residents, an argument that is further supported by past laws -such as the 2013 Bill of Rights- and prior judicial rulings, in particular Trials Against Former Citizens and TSP's Jurisdiction. However, Article 2 and Article 3.3 of the Charter support an alternative interpretation, where members are distinguishable from illegitimate invaders and usurpers. It would be reasonable then to interpret the status of membership as that wherein a nation that resides in the region or a user registered on the forum either resides or participates in the same without reasonable displays of bad faith or intent to upset the legitimate order of the Coalition.
Since its rewriting in the 2016 Great Council, the Charter of the South Pacific has made various references to the members of the region and its institutions, yet the only clue on the meaning of these words has been the context of each passage and the common sense of each individual, without a uniform guiding principle to bring clarity and agreement to these words, and their application. In submitting this legal question, the Court has been asked to provide such clarity and guidance, in particular to the word member as used in Article 3 of the Charter.
I
General and Historical Overview A. General Definition
In searching for a consistent meaning for the word member, it would make sense for the Court to refer, first and foremost, to its commonly understood meaning, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary. In its entry, the Dictionary contains a number of definitions for the term: A person, animal or plant belonging to a particular group.
A person, country or organization that has joined a particular group, society or team. A constituent piece of a complex structure, especially a component of a load-bearing structure. These definitions all refer to the components of a whole, but they each show different conceptions of the importance of the group as a condition for membership. In the first definition, the emphasis is placed on the aspect of belonging. It is unclear whether mere presence or forced adherence qualify as membership. In the second definition, we see that the member must have, presumably voluntarily, joined the group. This already constitutes a major change with regard to the prior definition, since membership now requires a conscious act, a will to be part of a collective. To give a more practical example, being a superhero does not make one an automatic member of the Avengers or the Justice League. This is taken to further lengths in the third definition, where the member is now a “constituent piece” of the group, implying that the role of the member is fundamental in keeping the group machine running. This definition stays silent on the voluntary or compulsory nature of membership, but it does offer a more symbiotic view of the relationship between the member and the group, where the member helps keep the group functioning, and the group offers the member the possibility of participating in a greater scheme. These definitions are obviously ignorant of the context in which the word member has appeared, and been used, in the laws of the South Pacific, both present and past, and so no single definition will fit the word in a context that would be useful for the purposes of this ruling. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to examine the extent to which the definitions are applicable, and seek further information to obtain a clear understanding of the word member, and how it should be defined. B. Usage in Past Laws There have been scant mentions of the word member in past regional laws, but there has been significant debate, at times, on the meaning and limits of similar words. One such debate is the one surrounding the 2013 Bill of Rights, in the aftermath of the Milograd Coup, which included a discussion on the applicability of the proposed Bill of Rights to non-citizens who resided in the region. In response to calls for increased equality in the region, the Bill of Rights was drafted to be applicable to all residents, but no definition was offered of who constituted a resident. Debate initially focused on the possibility of using alternative language to better describe the nations that would be protected by the Bill of Rights, and the possibility that citizens and non-citizens could be given separate documents. In the end, the debate shifted to two main questions: whether a citizen should also be considered a resident, and therefore be included under the protection of the proposed Bill of Rights; and whether spammers and regional recruiters should be considered residents, and therefore be protected by the free speech clause of the proposed Bill of Rights. This second question is of particular interest to the Court, since it deals with the matter currently under consideration. They could have been considered residents, and therefore entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; or they could not be considered residents, in which case their messages could be suppressed, and they themselves could be expelled from the region, without any concern for their rights under regional law. This became moot when it was noticed that the law already allowed the Delegate to establish and enforce rules on spam and regional recruitment on the regional message board. However, this already provides two important clues about the way in which membership was seen at the time. In terms of the regional community, there was a considerable sentiment in the Assembly that recruiters should receive lesser protections under the Bill of Rights, or not be considered residents at all. This latter position was shared by Delegate Southern Bellz, Punk D and Rebeltopia. These are individual opinions, hence the Court cannot consider them authoritative, but they do provide valuable context about the attitudes of prominent members, when the law in question was being drafted and debated. In terms of regional law, the Charter already provided for the diminished protection of a subset of nations which, while physically located in the region, were not considered fully integrated into it. It is evident, when reading Article 5, Section 2 of the Charter (2013), that the language used clearly separated recruiters from regular nations: 3. The Delegate may implement policies regarding regional message board adverts and spam and expel recruiters for violating said policies.
4. The Delegate is responsible for making sure all nations abide by the endorsement cap as established and enforced by the Committee for State Security. 5. The Delegate may eject nations when permitted by the Charter and Code of Laws. It would be easy to conclude that recruiters and spammers are singled out because Clause 3 refers to them, whereas Clauses 4 and 5 refer to all nations. That is undoubtedly true, but at the same time, Clause 5 provides for the ejection of nations when permitted by the Charter and the Code of Laws. If so, and considering that the Charter is meant to be more difficult to amend, why include a specific and separate clause that outlines the conditions under which a subset of nations may be expelled? This leads one to conclude that spammers and recruiters might not have been considered residents in the same way as those who were in the region with the intention, explicit or implicit, of residing in it. This would explain the diminished protection they received between the delegacies of Southern Bellz (2010) and Escade (2013) and the full ban that was implemented by Delegate Kris Kringle (2014), which remains in place. In that sense, and bearing in mind that this examination is superficial, and does not account for all possible implications and historical context, it would seem that, under the 2013 Charter, not all residents were held in equal standing for the purpose of regional law, and some, based on a reasonable judgement of their intent and actions, could, and were, guaranteed less rights under regional law. II
Legal Context and Precedent A. Context and Intent of the Charter
Today regional law is considerably different from that of four years ago, particularly since the 2016 Great Council led to an almost complete legal revision. While an understanding of past debates and laws is important, there is an equal merit to considering the intent behind the drafting of current regional law, both through an examination of the context and content of the debates that led to it, as well as through the posing of questions to its authors. A review of the debates held during the 2016 Great Council shows that there were discussions on the merits of dissolving the tie between citizenship and political rights. Delegate Tsunamy suggested that all residents should be considered citizens, and that applications should instead be opened for membership in the Assembly. A vote on the need to further discuss the issue of regional citizenship received 95% support, showing broad consensus on the importance of continued discussion in the Great Council. In the course of that continued discussion, the consensus remained that the proposal was a positive one, and that citizenship should be the term used to refer to those residing in the region. Belschaft added that all those with a nation in the region “should be assumed to be a citizenship until demonstrated otherwise” and posed the example of a player shown to be residing in the region for “nefarious purposes” as a cause for the invalidation of automatic citizenship. There was no further discussion on that particular point, so there are little contemporary clues as to the exact meaning of nefarious purposes, the process through which such could be determined, or the exact penalties for the loss of citizenship. This had no negative impact, regardless, since it was an individual opinion and also since the Charter, as adopted, made no mention of automatic citizenship, using instead the term member. In a private testimony to the Court, Sandaoguo, one of the primary drafters of the Charter, provided his views on the term member, and the reasoning behind it: “Member” was used because we had specifically moved away from the citizen/resident dichotomy. (...) Because of that shift, I needed a neutral term to describe everybody, regardless of their participation in the Assembly.
This shows why the shift itself happened, but Sandaoguo also offered an explanation on why he chose the term member, as opposed to the initially proposed term of citizen. He suggested that the latter term was a word “with a lot of baggage”, but the implication was that member was functionally similar to automatic citizenship or the earlier combination of citizens and resident non-citizens. Sandaoguo also explained the relationship between the Bill of Rights and Article 3 by saying that the latter was meant as a more compact, but essentially equivalent, version of the latter. In particular, he said that he used “members of the South Pacific” as an equivalent for the “nations that reside in the South Pacific” that was adopted for the Bill of Rights. It would be a mistake to take any single post or testimony as the authoritative word on the matter, particularly since testimonies can be misleading or misconstrued, or may offer a partial or tainted view of the issue, which may not correspond to the reality of the situation, but the above testimony does offer a useful view of the intent behind the term member. It does not, however, nor should it, offer a full view of the implications and possible applications of that term, which is why further review and analysis are still required. B. Judicial Precedent There is much to be learned from the precedent and guidance set by the Court in its past rulings. Most rulings were issued prior to the passage of the current Charter, and therefore their applicability is limited in some respects, but where applicable, they do offer a valuable insight into the possible interpretation of the law. One of the more interesting rulings is Trials Against Former Citizens [HCLQ1504]. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Bill of Rights afforded all residents, regardless of their citizenship status, the ability to face criminal charges, with all the guarantees of due process. In its ruling, the Court indicated the following: Pertaining the issue of charges being filed against former citizens, the Court is of the opinion that a former citizen can still be charged as long as the nation involved, or its puppets, is still resident in the in-game South Pacific region.
This should be seen within the context of the legal question, which sought clarification on a contradiction between the Bill of Rights and Article 4 of the Charter. While the former afforded the right to trial to all nations residing in the region, the latter only addressed the filing of criminal charges against citizens. The Court ruled that the contradiction should be reconciled in favour of the Bill of Rights and advised that Article 4 be amended to apply to all residents, affirming a “commitment to protect the rights of residents of the region”. Trials Against Former Citizens is particularly relevant to the present case because it offers a view of how the Court has interpreted the applicability and extent of rights guaranteed by the Charter. In what could well be a landmark moment, it establishes that the Court should interpret the law to the benefit of the most. It would been entirely possible for the Court to rule that only citizens should have access to the judiciary, but based on the text and spirit of the Bill of Rights, it was deemed that all residents, regardless of their citizenship status, should share the same access to judicial recourse. It does need to be pointed out that Trials Against Former Citizens dealt with the matter of citizens and residents under the assumption that both were fully integrated groups within the region, whereas the present case asks the Court to define the groups themselves. Trials Against Former Citizens is useful because it provides guidance to the Court on the scope that it should use when deciding the definition of member, and how broad or limited that definition should be. A similarly interesting case is TSP’s Jurisdiction [HCLQ1404], where the Court ruled unanimously, in a decision delivered by Justice Belschaft, that the sovereignty of the Coalition extended to “any individual with a nation in The South Pacific, an account on our forums, or a nation in another region explicitly under the sovereignty of The Coalition”. TSP’s Jurisdiction is important to the present case because it led the Court to adopt the view that mere presence in the region or any location under its jurisdiction is sufficient for criminal liability to exist. A crime could be planned or committed elsewhere, but so long as the individual fell under the jurisdiction of the Coalition, they would be liable for it. While Trials Against Former Citizens expanded the applicability of rights, Jurisdiction expanded the applicability of criminal prosecution. This is a significant decision because, when coupled with Trials, Jurisdiction forms part of a duet of rulings that address, at different times and for different reasons, the extent to which the Coalition may act over individuals, and the conditions that must be met for their rights to be respected. When seen together, the Court moved in a direction where the jurisdiction of the Coalition applied over more individuals and situations. This does not necessarily mean that those under the jurisdiction of the Coalition should automatically be considered members, and indeed Tsunamy submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that exact point, but it does set a precedent for the Court that, where rights and liabilities can be responsibly expanded, they should be expanded. Under the assumption, the question remains of just how much can the definition of member be expanded until it becomes unviable or otherwise inadequate. III
Context and Arguments A. Role of the Court
It does not escape the Court the fact that there are multiple implications of a legal, political and security nature, for both the government and the region, to the definition of member contained in this ruling. It is important, however, to state in no unclear terms that the Court has a responsibility to leave aside all political considerations, lest it let itself be guided by principles other than the strict obedience of the law. It is not the job of the Court to further the ambitions of other government institutions or its members. It is not the job of the Court to interpret the law so that certain convenient or desirable actions are made legal. A legal question is not the Invasion of Naboo, and the Court is no Senator Palpatine to be in the business of legalising questionable actions. While rulings will often have supporters and detractors, and the Permanent Justice may have personal opinions on the desirability of certain policies, neither the potential popularity of a given ruling, nor the personal feelings of the Justice, should play any role in the decision that the Court makes. In the courtroom there is only place for what the law says, and how it can be reasonably interpreted, without regard for personal or political interests, or special preferences for the desires of private parties. It is not popularity nor passion that win an case, but the soundless of the legal argument and its consistency with existing precedent. Such arguments can be made by anyone, popular or unpopular and must be given equal and fair consideration by the Court, since its business is conducted not for the benefit of those most powerful, but for that of the whole region, and especially for those who, while not wielding the most commanding voice, have an equal right to enjoying the benefits of membership under the law. B. Current Context In spite of the above, there is merit in considering the political happenings in the region, since they can provide valuable clues as to the intent behind the drafting of laws, particularly those that are constantly updated, and whose meaning can similarly change. Such is the case of Article 3, which has been the subject of lively debates in the Assembly, the result of a recent attempt to upset the delegacy. These debates resulted in the passage of an amendment to Article 3, Clause 3 of the Charter, which clarified that no member “who had joined the region in good faith” can be ejected or banned without due process. This leads to the obvious conclusion that members found to have joined the region in bad faith could theoretically, though not inevitably, be ejected or banned without due process. This also raises the stakes for the Court to offer a sufficiently adequate definition for the term member, given the possible, though again, not inevitable, risk that an ill defined term could endanger the residency status of certain members. It is worth warning that the above is not a legal interpretation of the amendment, nor should it be considered an official ruling of the Court on its applicability. This is merely a logical exercise meant to show the effects that current events can and do have on judicial business. In particular, this amendment is also of interest to the Court because it adds additional language to Article 3, potentially altering the conclusions that the Court had reached regarding the interpretation of the term member. C. Contributions by Interested Parties There was no shortage of contributions to this case by interested parties in the form of amicus curiae briefs, and the Court was fortunate enough to engage a number of these parties in a dialogue that proved most useful for the examination of these briefs. Tsunamy submitted one of the first amicus curiae briefs for this case, presenting an argument for a limitation in the definition of the term member. In his brief, he argued that “those who do not reside within the in-game [region] do not enjoy the same rights and protections” and should therefore not be considered members. He further suggested that visitors and foreign officials who have a forum account but no physical presence in the region should be similarly excluded from the benefits and privileges of membership. In a subsequent questioning as part of the oral argument, Tsunamy clarified that his brief was meant as a response to Sandaoguo, whose own brief had implied that forum membership should be included in the definition of member. This is an interesting point, and one with which the Court partially concurs. However, the Court does not fully share the belief that the lack of physical residency is the sole deciding factor. A visitor with a forum account, whose sole purpose in the region is to participate in a specific forum event, without having a more prolonged presence, has no reasonable expectation of membership, since they themselves have no intention of participating in the region in a longer-term and more comprehensive way. It is not, therefore, a matter of solely physical presence, just rather also about the intent of participation. A foreign diplomat could simultaneously be a long-term forum user. A forum user could be a regular contributor, yet be banned from NationStates. In both cases, while there is no physical presence, there is an expectation that the user is willingly participating on a long-term basis and in good faith in a venue that is central to the Coalition as defined in the Charter. This is consistent with the spirit of the ruling in Trials Against Former Citizens and the precedent set by TSP’s Jurisdiction. Any question before the Court should be considered from the perspective of the potential expansion of rights to the members of the region, and the jurisdiction of the Coalition extends beyond the region itself. In that sense, while Tsunamy was correct that, under most situations, a forum user with no physical presence in the region would not be afforded the condition of member, if would not be inconceivable that forum users who display a good faith intent to participate should be recognised as members of the region, and receive all the rights and privileges attached therein. This obviously results in certain issues that would need addressing. How can a member be protected from expulsion from the region if they are not present in the region? Would a member with no presence in the region be allowed to attain legislator status, despite the requirement that legislators be residents? Who would determine which forum users should be considered members? These questions must be approached from a purely logical perspective. A member with no presence in the region has obviously no way of being expelled. Where a crime has been committed and the member found guilty, the Court is empowered to determine an appropriate sentence. Should the member be deemed a security threat, there are mechanisms to have them lawfully removed from regional venues. A member who is not a resident can not attain legislator status, since Article 4, Clause 5 of the Charter clearly makes residency a requirement. Whether that is fair or unfair would be irrelevant, since legislator status is not a privilege, nor does membership include an automatic right to attain such status. There is less clarity in the law regarding the mechanism through which a forum user could be deemed a member. While it is appropriate for the Court to rule that certain forum users, under certain circumstances, could be considered members, it would be inappropriate to establish a process for that, lest the Court usurp the prerogatives of the Assembly. It is incumbent upon the latter then to determine whether, and how, to legislate on the matter. Belschaft also submitted an amicus curiae brief of his own, arguing for a further limitation in the definition of member. He explained that “there are some classes of nation residing in the South Pacific [to which] it would be absurd to extend the rights of citizenship” and suggested the hypothetical case of an invasion force to make the case that not all residents should be held in equal standing. There is merit to the concern presented by Belschaft, based on certain issues recently discussed in the Private Halls of the Assembly and the events that prompted such discussion, which led to the passage of the Border Control Act. Indeed, while a direct invasion is no longer the primary method for overthrowing the government of a region, outside help for an internal effort remains a way of accomplishing such a goal, as seen in the events of Lazarus. This also, however, represents a considerable departure from the longstanding understanding of citizenship and residency, that has been used in regional law thus far. Before 2013 rights were guaranteed exclusively to citizens. After 2013 the Bill of Rights guaranteed a more extensive set of rights to all residents, excluding spammers and recruiters, who received diminished protections. Belschaft was proposing a model in which certain residents would not be considered to possess the legal rights afforded to members. In other words, some residents would be more equal than others. There are a number of implications, should this premise be accepted. First, it would mean that certain institutions, would have to make determinations regarding the legal membership of certain residents, thereby introducing a potentially subjective element into a previously objective definition. Whereas previously all residents were considered covered by the Bill of Rights, under this new definition, criteria would have to be set and certain institutions would need to develop a fair and unbiased process for the consideration of the membership status of certain nations. Second, there is an ever present risk that certain nations, who ought to be considered members, would be deemed non-members by a politicised institution. In the course of oral argument, Belschaft expressed the view that harm was not relevant to the legal determination of this case, but the Court would venture that harm is very significant. There are various possible interpretations, but it would be ludicrous for the Court to decide in a way that could potentially harm members, where an alternative interpretation, equally reasonable and based on a sound reading of the law and precedent, would not cause any harm. It is the responsibility of this course to avoid causing unneeded harm on the members for whom it decides. Third, there is the issue of how such an interpretation would interact with the precedent set out in TSP’s Jurisdiction. As the Court has already examined, the aforementioned ruling decided that all individuals using a venue under the jurisdiction of the Coalition themselves fall under said jurisdiction, and are liable for any crimes committed against the Coalition. If certain residents or forum users are not considered members, would they still be liable for crimes committed? Would they be entitled to due process? Farengeto made an alternative argument. In contrast with Belschaft, Farengeto argued “that these rights apply to all residents (...) was clearly the intent of this law” and cautioned the Court against making a decision based on political convenience. His argument proposed that the intent of the Charter should be considered regardless of what the Assembly believed the law should say now. There is nothing objectionable that the Court finds in that remark. As was indicated in a prior section of this ruling, there is no place for political consideration or questions of what the law should be, and if a reasonable interpretation of the Charter indicated that all residents should be considered members under Article 3, then that interpretation should prevail. However, during the writing of this ruling, the Assembly passed an amendment to the Charter, which added language to Article 3. While the original text indicated that members may not be expelled from the region without due process, the amended text reads as follows: No member, who has joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.
This is a very significant development. A first reading of the amended text could led to the reasonable conclusion that that the phrasing implies that certain members may have joined the region in bad faith, and could be expelled without due process. This is a possible interpretation, but a troubling one, which exacerbates the issues listed in prior paragraphs. The context of the legislative debate, however, proposes a different interpretation. In the post where he submitted the amendment, Tsunamy indicated that its purpose was to “give us the ability to boot people who (...) cause trouble while protecting everyone else”. This explanation, coupled with the broader context of a discussion, would lead the Court to conclude that the intent was to exclude certain users, whose intent is exclusively or primarily to violate the legal order, from being considered members, and therefore acceding to the protections of Article 3. There is an additional clue to this in Article 2 of the Charter, where the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Coalition are outlined. A clear distinction is made between internal dissidents and illegitimate invaders and usurpers. The former are listed as one of the groups that may not challenge or violate the integrity of the Coalition, along with government officials and foreign regions. All three can be considered legitimate entities. A stark contrast is made with illegitimate invaders and usurpers, whom the Charter explicitly refuses to recognise as legitimate entities, choosing instead to attribute the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Coalition to the union of the region and the forum. It is clear than that good faith an intent are relevant. A nation or forum user who disagrees with the government is exercising their rights. A nation or forum user who displays a clear intent to violate the sovereignty of the Coalition, without any accompanying intent to participate in good faith in the affairs of the region, might be considered an illegitimate invader or usurper, and be treated accordingly. IV
Ruling of the Court There are few privileges greater in the region than being a member. There are positions and offices in the government to which one can accede, but none if one is not previously considered a member. As one, the user can participate in the affairs of the region, contact and petition their government officials, receive all the protections of due process, and have a legitimate claim to their participation in regional life.
At the beginning of this ruling, it was said that there are three main definitions for the word member. It is the belief of the Court that the third definition fits best. A member of this region is a constituent piece of a complex structure, part of a fourteen year old region with its own government, culture, practices and membership. To be a member of the South Pacific is to partake in more than a decade of history and to help create more of it each day, for present and future generations to enjoy. The very fact that membership, being so basic, carries so much power, means that there must be a test to it. It could not be stringent or exclusive, lest membership become a club for the few at the expense of the most. It cannot be nonexistent, since some nations are evidently uninterested in an honest participation in the affairs of the region. It must be fair and balanced, and it must display the very respect in freedom, opportunity and due process that characterise the South Pacific. A physical presence in the two constituent venues of the Coalition is necessary. One cannot be a member is one does not have a presence in the region or the forum, since both are the joint repositories of the authority and legitimacy of the Coalition. A reasonable display of participation in good faith is also necessary, since such a display is key for the distinction between a legitimate member and an illegitimate invader or usurper. That institution which is tasked with considering the membership of nations and forum users would have to consider criteria like the regularity of nation management, active participation in regional discussions and a reasonably innocent intent as clues to determine their membership status. It is also important to remain cognizant of the risk of potential harm. While certain cases will be easy to determine, that of an external invading force being one such case, others will be less evident, and restraint will have to be exercised. It is the responsibility of the institution to prove that there is bad faith in the conduct of a possible member. In addition, membership cannot be forfeited once gained, since that would involve an unacceptable privation of rights, contrary to the spirit of the law and judicial precedent. In all cases, the Court retains its ability to consider the legality of government actions, and therefore the aggrieved party retains the right to petition the Court for such redress, regardless of their membership status, though it is relevant to point out that a right to petition for remedy does not equate a right to obtain such remedy, should the government action be legal. Such cases will be treated fairly, in accordance with the tradition of the region. This ruling reflects the ideal conception of membership. It is not an automatic and unlimited right. It is a privilege to which most residents and forum users should access, but membership also requires a sincere commitment to respecting the Coalition, and while it does not require constant participation, it does require that participation, however active or passive, outward or withdrawn, be devoid of lies and deception, and conducted in good faith. It is so ordered.
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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |