Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 12-31-2018, 08:28 PM

I present the following re-write of the Proscription Act, which I believe addresses several major issues that have been brought up in debate both on the forums and on Discord. I also believe this is a better alternative to proposals that somewhat lack in accountability and legal protections.

Proscription Act
An Act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition

1. Acts of Hostility

(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of The South Pacific, or its allies, are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful—
(a) Overthrowing the legitimate government;
(b) Unlawfully causing a nation to become Delegate;
(.c) Unlawfully gaining access to privileged or classified information, or distributing it or publishing it;
(d) Exploiting, manipulating, or unduly influencing elections or votes;
(e) Acting as an agent on behalf of a foreign region or organization, to the detriment of the legitimate government.

(2) Conspiracy, defined as planning, strategizing, or otherwise showing an intent to commit an act of hostility shall itself be considered an act of hostility.

(3) Complicity, defined as promoting, inducing, aiding or abetting an act of hostility, including a conspiracy to commit such an act, shall itself be considered an act of hostility.

(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed against an ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.

2. Proscriptions

(1) A regional proscription is a prohibition on an individual or on all members of a region or organization from having a nation in any regions in the Coalition's jurisdiction.

(2) A full proscription comprises a regional proscription as well as a prohibition on access to off-site resources of the Coalition.

3. Grant of Authority

(1) The Cabinet or the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a individual that is not a member of the Coalition, or a foreign region or organization, that they determine to be hostile. The Cabinet together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a member or a group of members that they determine to be hostile.

(2) A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts. All extant proscriptions must be publicly visible at all times.

(3) Upon proscription of a region or organization, any members of the Coalition affected by that proscription will have 7 days to demonstrably renounce their association to the satisfaction of the issuing authority before the proscription is enforced.

(4) The issuing authority of a proscription may revoke it at any time, by issuing to the Assembly a report on why the proscription is no longer necessary to protect regional security. The Assembly may call upon the issuing authority to review an extant proscription, by passing a resolution to that effect by majority vote.

4. Judicial Review

(1) A member of the Coalition subject to a proscription may petition the High Court for judicial review under of the following procedures—
(a) The individual may request that the High Court review underlying evidence of intelligence upon which their proscription is based.
(b) If under a proscription of a region or organization, the individual may present an appeal that they are not a member of the targeted region or organization.

(2) In conducting a review of an individual proscription, the High Court shall only determine if the issuing authority followed the required process, has a rational basis to their interpretation of evidence and intelligence underlying the proscription, and the issuing authority hasn’t ignored exculpatory evidence.

(3) In conducting a review in which an individual appeals that they are not a member of the targeted region or organization, the High Court shall review evidence provided by the issuing authority and the counter-claims of the individual, and determine if the individual is not a member of the targeted region or organization based upon the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) For the purposes above, the individual must be granted adequate forum permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.

5. Mark of Constitutional Status

(1) This law shall be considered a constitutional law under the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019, 11:13 AM by Amerion.)

Nat · 12-31-2018, 09:58 PM

I think this is a very nice draft @sandaoguo

I like Article 1.

I like that you kept the distinction between a regional and a full proscription in Article 2.

I have a question about Section 3 and 4: if a person renounces their affiliation with a proscribed region or organisation after the seven day period then would they be allowed back into the region?

I generally like Article 4, though I think that regions/organisations should be allowed to appeal their proscription. Given the stricter criteria placed upon the court, it would be less likely they will succeed. A time lapse could also be added (e.g. that a court decision on a proscription does not take place until seven days after it has been made). However, it is somewhat of a separate issue and so perhaps best dealt with elsewhere.

Anyway, thank you and well done on your work Smile

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***sandaoguo*** · 12-31-2018, 10:07 PM

I’m open to debating if people should be allowed to renounce membership after the 7 day mark. But I’m generally skeptical of making it so easy. For example, Empire members are fond of saying that Empire doesn’t even exist anymore, thus they aren’t “members” of it. (Despite the fact that they still do all the same things— they just don’t change government names to “X Empire” when they infiltrate or coup anymore.)

As for article 4, I don’t think entire regions or organizations should ever be granted rights, period. They are foreign and they are hostile. They do not have rights, period. Foreigners don’t have rights when they’re our *friends*, so it’s wrong to give them legal rights when they’re our *enemies*. (And no other regions in this game would even consider reciprocating.) I genuinely don’t get the desire to hand enemies a hammer to smash our attempts at protecting ourselves from them. I truly think it makes zero sense, and I imagine people are simply thinking “oh but we’re a democracy” and not critically thinking that a) these are not TSPers and b) these are enemies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 12-31-2018, 10:09 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 12-31-2018, 10:44 PM

I'll need to give this another look in more detail, but on my first reading this seems entirely reasonable.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-01-2019, 05:03 AM

I'm assuming that, for Article 4.2, the Court would also be allowed to review for membership in a proscribed region?

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

***sandaoguo*** · 01-01-2019, 09:34 AM

(01-01-2019, 05:03 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I'm assuming that, for Article 4.2, the Court would also be allowed to review for membership in a proscribed region?

Yes, I’ll need to add that in, since members of the Coalition have the right to challenge a claim that they’re a member of a prohibited group.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***sandaoguo*** · 01-02-2019, 12:57 PM

I've added a clause for how the High Court should handle appeals of proscribed group membership.

Just a notice, I intend to motion this as soon as it's eligible.

**Pronoun** · 01-02-2019, 02:37 PM

(01-02-2019, 12:57 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: […]

Just a notice, I intend to motion this as soon as it's eligible.

If that's the case, since it hasn't been brought up yet, could I suggest removing the period before the lettering for article 1, section 1c?

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

***sandaoguo*** · 01-02-2019, 03:01 PM

(01-02-2019, 02:37 PM)Pronoun Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 12:57 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: […]

Just a notice, I intend to motion this as soon as it's eligible.

If that's the case, since it hasn't been brought up yet, could I suggest removing the period before the lettering for article 1, section 1c?

If I do, it becomes a copyright symbol Sad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Pronoun** · 01-02-2019, 03:04 PM

(01-02-2019, 03:01 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 02:37 PM)Pronoun Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 12:57 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: […]

Just a notice, I intend to motion this as soon as it's eligible.

If that's the case, since it hasn't been brought up yet, could I suggest removing the period before the lettering for article 1, section 1c?

If I do, it becomes a copyright symbol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh… I was wondering why that was there.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord