Users browsing this thread:

**Farengeto** · 08-10-2017, 12:07 PM

Your honour,

Article 3 of the Charter (Rights and Freedoms) makes several references to "members". This reference comes in several forms: "members of the Coalition" (Article 3), "members of The South Pacific" (Article 3.1), and just plain "member" (Article 3.2, 3.3, 3.4). However the term member in any if these usages is not defined anywhere in our laws and thus remains ambiguous.

Traditional (non-Judicial) interpretation has extended these rights to all residents of the in-game region and all members of (offical) The South Pacific forum. However the law is not clear on the matter.

Therefore I ask, who or what counts as members for the purposes of Article 3 of the Charter?

(This post was last modified: 08-11-2017, 08:39 PM by Farengeto.)

***sandaoguo*** · 08-10-2017, 02:28 PM

It's not the court's job to legislate, and deciding to define what "member" means in general would be legislating from the bench. The court can only interpret laws based on the plain meaning of the text, or the context of the law. It can't simply define what something means all on its own, absent any guiding information from the law or the Assembly.

Article III of the Charter establishes its context in the subtitle of the article-- the rights and freedoms of *all* members of the Coalition. The Coalition is explicitly defined as the forums and the in-game community.

Typically, the meaning of "member" is easily gleaned from the context of the law. In the CRS section, member means a member of the CRS. In the Assembly section, member would refer to legislators. In non-Charter laws specific to certain institutions, member refers to the members of those institutions. Where "member" alone would be ambiguous, other words are used-- legislator, player, etc.

(This post was last modified: 08-10-2017, 02:31 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Tsunamy*** · 08-10-2017, 02:37 PM

Your honor, if I may, I would strongly urge the court to take a wide of possible interpretation without being illogical here.

Clearly, "members," "members of the Coalition" and "members of The South Pacific" are essentially one in the same — especially as they refer to Article 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4; That should rightfully include all nations within the in-game region of The South Pacific.

Commonsense would tell us that those who do not reside within the in-game right do not enjoy the same rights and protections, nor would forum visitors from other regions, and/or ambassadors who do not also have a nation within The South Pacific.

Any reading of "member" beyond those within the NationStates-constituted region would be a gross misunderstanding of the game dynamics.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-11-2017, 09:09 AM

[Image: wNC8JrQ.png]

Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Farengeto requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:

Who or what counts as members for the purposes of Article 3 of the Charter?

Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.

It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:

It is deemed justiciable.
It shall be assigned the case number HCLQ1708 and be referred to in full as ‘HCLQ1708: Members of the Coalition’.
The Court invites all able and willing members to submit their views and stances on this Legal Question in the form of amicus curiae briefs, no later than 18 August 2017.
The Court shall consider the contributions by Sandaoguo and Tsunamy prior to this Determination, for the purposes of the consideration of this Legal Question, to be amicus curiae briefs.
The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request advisory opinions from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
The Court, in compliance with the Charter and the Court Procedures Act, retains the sole right to issue an opinion on this Legal Question.

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Permanent Justice

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: 08-14-2017, 01:30 AM by Kris Kringle.)

**Belschaft** · 08-11-2017, 11:00 AM

Your honour,

Petitioner would implore you to consider the golden rule when deciding this matter, for it is self evident that there are some classes of nation residing in the South Pacific that it would be absurd to extend the rights of citizenship to, and further that to do so would go against the clear intent of the assembly when legislating on this matter. Consider a hypothetical scenario wherein a hostile invading force of nations was present in the region, actively seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Coalition. A literal reading of the law, in it's broadest sense, could lead one to conclude that such rights are extended to any nation residing in the South Pacific. Petitioner believes this would be a clear mistake.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 08-11-2017, 11:18 AM

Without any apparent guidelines I caution the Court on any proposed suggestions that create classes of citizens. To judge legitimate newcomer from hostile foreigner is a delicate and political matter with no basis in the current form of our laws. That these rights apply to all residents of The South Pacific region was clearly the intent of this law, even if recent political debate now shows concerns of this definition.

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-12-2017, 12:40 AM

The Court would like to extend an invitation to the members who filed the following amicus curiae briefs to clarify and expand their reasoning with respect to the portions quoted hereafter:

(08-10-2017, 02:37 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Commonsense would tell us that those who do not reside within the in-game right do not enjoy the same rights and protections, nor would forum visitors from other regions, and/or ambassadors who do not also have a nation within The South Pacific.

(08-11-2017, 11:00 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Petitioner would implore you to consider the golden rule when deciding this matter, for it is self evident that there are some classes of nation residing in the South Pacific that it would be absurd to extend the rights of citizenship to, and further that to do so would go against the clear intent of the assembly when legislating on this matter.

(08-11-2017, 11:18 AM)Farengeto Wrote: That these rights apply to all residents of The South Pacific region was clearly the intent of this law, even if recent political debate now shows concerns of this definition.

In particular, the Court has the following questions regarding the quoted portions:

To Tsunamy: Why did you raise the issue of the rights of non-residents, when Article 3 implies a degree of attachment to the region?
To Belschaft: Given that Article 3 contains a list of rights, all applicable, at first glance, to all 'members', under what criteria would you suggest that the Court determine which rights are to be afforded to all residents, and which rights should be restricted only to certain residents?
To Belschaft: If the Court determines that certain rights should indeed be restricted to certain residents, would that not risk setting a precedent where rights are selective and granted, rather than equal and guaranteed?
To Farengeto: Do you believe that nations moving to the region in a coordinated manner with the sole intent of violating the delegacy, and thus upsetting the legal order, should be considered before the law the same as, and be subject to the same rights as, nations who reside in the region in good faith?

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: 08-12-2017, 03:40 PM by Kris Kringle.)

***Tsunamy*** · 08-12-2017, 11:36 PM

(08-12-2017, 12:40 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
The Court would like to extend an invitation to the members who filed the following amicus curiae briefs to clarify and expand their reasoning with respect to the portions quoted hereafter:

(08-10-2017, 02:37 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Commonsense would tell us that those who do not reside within the in-game right do not enjoy the same rights and protections, nor would forum visitors from other regions, and/or ambassadors who do not also have a nation within The South Pacific.

The petitioner noted that all forum members are generally thought of as members of the region, however, not all forum members have nations within The South Pacific.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 08-13-2017, 10:42 AM by Tsunamy.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-12-2017, 11:53 PM

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

**Belschaft** · 08-13-2017, 12:18 PM

Your honour,

I do not suggest restricting certain rights to only some residents, nor do I believe that creating "classes" of residents with different rights would be a good think. I merely suggest that certain nations physically present in The South Pacific cannot, should not, and are not, considered residents. The example I provided - a hostile group of invading nations - are not acting in good faith, and their very presence here is a rejection of our laws. As such they should not be considered resident.

I would suggest that only those nations peaceably residing in TSP and accepting, in principal, our laws and traditions are residents. A nation that is in active defiance of our laws and seeking to destroy our way of life, traditions, and charter, should not be considered a resident.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES