Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [1917] Priority of Regional Officer Slots |
For some time now the South Pacific has been brushing up against a limit imposed by Nationstates on our Regional Officer positions. While we would ideally have an unlimited number of these positions, we are restricted to a hard limit of 12 (not counting the Delegate). With current membership, we now no longer have sufficient slots to grant regional officer powers to everyone.
Article 2 of the Regional Officers Acts specifies that the following positions should have RO powers:
Quote:(11) The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfill their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members.CRS regional officers are further affirmed and outlined in Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act. Additionally, the Election Commissioner will temporarily be granted Regional Officer powers during the election. As you can see, with the current CRS roster of 7 this can result in a worst-case maximum of 14 potential regional officers, already in excess of the limit of 12. The matter is further complicated by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act, which allows the granting of discretionary regional officer powers to other regional members. The most notable use of this has been the Minister of Military Affairs, where it has been an unofficial executive precedent to grant them this discretionary power for a couple of years now. This matter thus raises several related questions of legal interpretation:
I thank the court for its consideration of the 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
The necessity for this decision is a simple one: the interpretation of this subject is already affecting the region. We have already run out of Regional Officer slots, and this dispute can only get worse within the current structure of our regional government. The Delegate has already been forced to revoke the Regional Officer position of the Minister of Military Affairs due to a lack of slots. Conflicting interpretations and interests feed disputes over who should be cut first. The priority or lack thereof on these more "dynamic" regional officer positions can dramatically change these discussions.
With due respect to the Justices of the Court, it has now been almost two months since I submitted this case and I have still yet to receive a ruling of justicability.
I would like to offer the Court's apologies for this unacceptable delay. A determination will be issued before the end of the present week.
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
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 Honourable Justices,
Acknowledging the Court's deadline for amicus brief submission has passed, I respectfully petition the court to allow this late submission. If the Court deems the brief time barred, I respectfully support that position. The following amicus brief is respectfully submitted by BEEPEE to aide the Court in its consideration of the legal questions posed by FARENGETO • Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members? • When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority? • Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely? • How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis? Known as Priority of Regional Officer Slots. [HCLQ1905] ___________________________________________ The Legal Question submitted by FARENGETO, is in fact four set questions, to aide the court I shall take each in turn Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members? Article 1 of the Regional Officers Act states that “Executive" power is the power to appoint or remove regional officers. Article 2 states that the Delegate has all the powers outlined in Article 1, thereby including executive power. No other regional officer has executive power, to appoint or otherwise. Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act allows the cabinet, delegate and Council on Regional Security provide additional powers to regional members. It does not give power to grant or allocate slots to non “regional members” or “flexible members". There is no definition of "Regional Members" in the Act. The Regional Officers Act only mentions ”members” in respect of the Council of Regional Security. The question arises as to where the definition of Regional Member exists. A number of potential definitions may exist however none appear to be “Regional Members". The closest version I have been able to find is, in the Charter which discusses “Member of the Coalition”, which is effectively all residents within South Pacific. It is not clear from the discussion related to the Act what the intent of “Regional Members" is. A reasonable interpretation of "Regional members" must be regional officers, and this is simply a drafting error which should be flagged to the chair of the assembly or an inconsistency which could be alleviated through the Court. Even assuming the broadest of interpretations of “Regional Member" afforded by the Charter, and the Delegate could grant powers to a citizen of the South Pacific, above those of a named regional officer. No priority exists, one would expect a reasonable executive working in a reasonable mind to favour the list of Regional officers indicated in Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act. When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority? FARENGETO correctly states that the number of Regional Officer posts are limited. Indeed they are limited to 13 spaces including Delegate. The Regional Officers Act (Article 2) sets out the Officers as follows: (1) The in-game Delegate will be granted all Regional Officer powers. (2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be granted the Embassies power. (3) The Minister of Regional Affairs will be granted the Appearance and Communications powers. (4) The Prime Minister will be granted the collective set of powers granted to the other Cabinet ministers herein. (5) Members of the Council on Regional Security will be granted the Border Control power. (6) At least one member of the Local Council will be granted the Appearance, Communications, and Polls power. (7) During elections, the Election Commissioner will be granted the Polls and Communication powers. Assuming the most busy time for the Regional Officers would be at election (and the election Commissioner would be included as a Regional Officer), and the Delegate, MoFA, MoRA, EC and PM are to be given slots 8 spaces exist. The article directs that at least one member of the Local Council is included in the Regional Officers List, and does not specify “all" or a number of members of the CRS to be provided powers. It would therefore seem in line with legislation that as long as at least 1 member of the LC is included as a regional officer, 7 regional officer positions exist for CRS members and/or Local Councillors. A Minimum of 1 space must also be given to the CRS to accord with the Charter. As the delegate is instructed to provide the CRS with the power to undertake its role in border security. FARENGETO rightly points out that The Charter (Article 9(11)) states that should the CRS contain more than 7 members the CRS should determine the order of seniority for the remaining slots. It is clear therefore that in the event of a large CRS would not be expected to fill all slots and take a lower priority than delegate, MoRA, MoFA, PM, LC1, CRS1 and, when relevant, EC. No priority CRS is Inferred or given, between Local Councillors (2 and 3 : Local Councillor 1 is however given priority) and CRS Members. It would be for the Executive (I.e. Delegate) to determine the make up of the Regional officers for the remaining slots. Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely? The Charter does not give full rights to the CRS for all spaces in the Regional Officers list. Indeed the Charter at Article 9(11) states only where positions are ‘available’. “When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members. “ The Delegate , as per the Regional Officers Act, is the only authorised executive and as such, beyond those listed previously, it is for her/his determination as to the set up of the remaining regional officers. Beyond the MoRA, MoFA, PM, LC1, andwhen appropriate, EC. The Delegate must however give the CRS the positions able to carry out its function. Therefore the Delegate must provide at least one space to be given to the CRS to accord with the Charter. Given the Regional Officer Act, The Regional Officer list could not be made up of 1 delegate and 12 CRS members (unless members of the CRS also had dual roles) The wording of the Charter allows for remaining spaces and the Regional Officer Act sets out what spaces must be given to certain officers. I would urge the Courts not to find ambiguity between the Charter and the Act. How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis? There is no legal basis for determining seniority. The CRS must determine it’s own methodology for seniority. Yours, respectfully BEEPEE
With due respect to the Justices of the Court, it has been another two months since the last update and there has been no further progress on this case. We are at the limit of our Regional Officer slots presently, so this case remains relevant.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
The following 5 users Like Nat's post:
• Al0neForever, Amerion, Jay Coop, phoenixofthesun14, Somyrion |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |