HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC CASE SUBMISSION I, Witchcraft and Sorcery, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Legality of "embassy closure" operations against regions that espouse hateful ideologies ARGUMENT Your Honors, I come before you today with a request for interpretation of Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the Coalition. Earlier today I had a conversation with Minister of Defense HumanSanity about a type of anti-fascist operation in which the Special Forces have engaged in the past, and a lack of clarity over the legality of closing fascist embassies emerged. At today's minor update, the Special Forces along with other Libcord personnel, including members of the Rejected Realms Army, Order of the Grey Wardens, and League Defense Forces, performed a series of detags intended to restore tagged regions to their initial states. I noted that two of these regions had embassies with known fascists: https://www.nationstates.net/region=united_we_stand has embassies with Raxulan Empire and Lardyland, among several other regions considered "OOC-questionable" at best; https://www.nationstates.net/region=land_of_prosperity has embassies with Oneid. Your Honors will note that, while neither region is known to espouse a hateful ideology, both regions maintain ties with regions tagged "Fascist" or, in the case of Raxulan Empire, are known to espouse fascism. Raxulan Empire is tagged "Anti-Fascist" but is known to the military and intelligence communities to destroy regions in the name of fascism and then attempt to hide behind "anti-fascist" tags to avoid detection. I seized the delegacy in both above regions and performed standard detag measures (in this case removing raider WFEs and flags, and restoring the WFE to its pre-raid status) and inquired with the Minister in the #general-corps channel whether it was okay for me to purge the fascist embassies from the above regions. The Minister denied this request partially on the basis that he believed it was illegal, and a conversation ensued about the legal status of such operations. During our respective terms as Minister of Defense, Phoenix and I both semi-regularly sanctioned and engaged in this type of operation on a more targeted basis (ie. searching for regions that had fascist embassies, seizing their delegacy, and closing the embassies). These operations were undertaken when there were no other operations of import, and thus did not impede upon our primary objectives of defending, but neither of us considered their legal status until this point. Basically, there are two types of operations here: they are somewhat different but ultimately fall under the same umbrella. 1) closing fascist embassies in the course of normal detagging; and 2) seeking out regions which are not explicitly fascist and seizing their delegacy in order to close embassies they have with known fascists. Article X.3 of the Charter states "Nor may the military attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions, excepting those regions which espouse hateful ideologies and those regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war." It became clear through the conversation I had with the Minister of Defense that there are two ways to read this statement: either 1) Since the embassied region espouses a hateful ideology, it is included in the exception, and thus is not protected from closure even if the region seized is not known to do the same; or 2)since the region seized does not espouse a hateful ideology, its embassies are its sovereign prerogative and may not be interfered with. If Your Honors require more clarification or evidence I am available to assist and am reachable through any of the usual communication methods. REQUEST Under Article X, Section 3 of the Charter, are members of the military permitted to seize the delegacy of regions which do not explicitly espouse hateful ideologies, and close embassies with regions that do? Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 08-05-2021, 10:07 AM by Kris Kringle. Edit Reason: [CJ Edit] Added the DN. )

Reply

(Personal Opinion):
If our military is engaged in a detagging operation to remove an invading force from a region that was previously independent and we have met that stated purpose then our engagement in the internal affairs of that region should end once the previous government is restored to power.

For us to make modifications to that regions political alliances would be for us to impose our own ideology upon that region. While we may not agree with whom they were associating with it is not our place to put our brand of tagging upon that region.

After liberating the region and returning it to its rightful occupants then we may encourage them to reevaluate their relationships with other regions through a political and educational process. Given that we may have just saved them from a total loss they may be very conducive to such discussions but we also need to be accepting that they may say "thank you, but no, we have other reasons on why we associate with ZXY region". That is their prerogative and unless we are prepared to become an invading force in our own right we must respect that choice.

Tisha
Minister of Engagement
Legislator
Coral Guard
Ambassador to South Pacific region
OWL senior staff

Tishers ?☢ [Nyxonia]

LEDA #1             June, July, August, September 2021
COB #10            April, May 2021
Wingspan #10     August, September 2021

"I am an endorsin fool"

(This post was last modified: 08-05-2021, 12:00 AM by Tishers [Nyxonia].)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2106.HQ] LEGALITY OF EMBASSY CLOSURE OPERATIONS AGAINST REGIONS THAT ESPOUSE HATEFUL IDEOLOGIES SUBMISSION 04 JUL 2021 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2106.HQ REFERENCE NAME Legality of Embassy Closure Operations Against Regions that Espouse Hateful Ideologies QUESTION Under Article X, Section 3 of the Charter, are members of the military permitted to seize the delegacy of regions which do not explicitly espouse hateful ideologies, and close embassies with regions that do? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 07 Aug 2021 10:00 UTC, but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2106.HQ.NR | Issued 05 Aug 2021

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

Reply

Your Honors, 

I believe resolution of this question to be necessary to determine the legal scope of operations the SPSF can conduct. There is a clear difference of interpretation between myself and past Ministers of Defense, as the petitioner notes in their argument, regarding the legality of an operation which alters a region which is not itself expressing hateful ideologies to remove embassies with those who are expressing hateful ideologies without the consent of the natives of the region. This disagreement is evidenced by my assessment, given to Commander Witchcraft and Sorcery, that such an operation is illegal compared to the actions of the petitioner as Minister and actions authorized under Minister FiHami/Phoenix of the Sun (which can be found documented here and here).

The Court addressing this question as to the meaning of Article X.3 is necessary for myself and future Ministers of Defense to know if such operations are legal options for the SPSF.

Thank you

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Yes, Your Honor.

While I have outlined most of my reasoning for submitting this Legal Question in my initial argument, I concur with the Minister of Defense that there is a clear discrepancy in military policy here, and the Charter is not immediately clear on whether such an operation is even legal. I seek the Court's opinion and clarification on this matter as a Commander of the Special Forces and former Minister of Defense who myself authorized such an operation in the past. 

A decision on this matter would further clarify the exact extent to which the military may engage in offensive operations against regions that espouse hateful ideologies. This has been something of a gray area in military policy for some time, and a ruling on this matter would go a long way toward defining the scope and exact types of operations that the Special Forces would legally have the Coalition's support in undertaking. It would assist in establishing some kind of operational hierarchy of what considerations commanders should make and set legal precedent for further operations of a similar nature.

I thank the Court for its time.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 08-06-2021, 10:50 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2106.HQ] LEGALITY OF EMBASSY CLOSURE OPERATIONS AGAINST REGIONS THAT ESPOUSE HATEFUL IDEOLOGIES SUBMISSION 04 JUL 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 07 AUG 2021 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2106.HQ.NR. SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than 18 Aug 2021 10:00 UTC, and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 14 Aug 2021 10:00 UTC. Any such requests should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse. RETENTION OF RIGHTS The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case. It is so ordered. 2106.HQ.DJ | Issued 10 Aug 2021

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

Reply

Your Honors,

I request the recusal of Associate Justice Roavin. As a member of the General Corps, Roavin was involved in conversations about authorizing this type of operation in the past and thus has demonstrated a pre-existing opinion about the legality of such actions and has a potential conflict of interest in resolving these legal questions, as resolution of the case in a certain manner could reflect poorly on past decisions of the General Corps, an institution of which he is a member.

Thank you

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2106.HQ] LEGALITY OF EMBASSY CLOSURE OPERATIONS AGAINST REGIONS THAT ESPOUSE HATEFUL IDEOLOGIES 10 Aug 2021 On the matter of the propriety of the involvement of Justice Roavin in the present case given their simultaneous role as a member of the General Corps, the request by HumanSanity is granted and Justice Roavin is hereby recused from this case.

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

Reply

Your Honors,

I argue that altering embassies of regions that do not themselves espouse hateful ideologies even if the embassies removed do espouse hateful ideologies is an illegal action for the South Pacific Special Forces per Article X(3) of the Charter. The relevant portion of the Charter is as follows:

Nor may the military attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions, excepting those regions which espouse hateful ideologies and those regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war.

I believe that the operations which are the focus of this legal question constitute vandalism and subjugation of a region and that the regions targeted by these operations do not espouse hateful ideologies.

"Subjugate" is defined by Lexico, the online platform of Oxford Dictionary, as to "[b]ring under domination or control, especially by conquest". This is corroborated by the Free Dictionary which defines subjugate as "To bring under control, especially by military force; conquer", with the secondary definition being "To make subordinate or subject to the dominion of something else". Altering a region's embassies does make the region subject to the wishes of the Coalition, specifically as it relates to the conduct of that region's foreign affairs, which is explicitly prohibited by the Charter.

"Vandalize" is defined by Cambridge Dictionary online as "to intentionally damage property belonging to other people". This definition is corroborated by Lexico which defines "vandalize" as "Deliberately destroy or damage (public or private property)". Common across most definitions of the term "vandalize" is destruction or damage to property that one does not own, with the element where the property is "belonging to other people" being crucial. I argue that changing the embassies of a region does "vandalize" the region because it deliberately damages property from the state where it was originally set by its rightful owners/inhabitants.

Additionally, regions which are not themselves hateful/do not themselves argue for hateful ideologies do not "espouse" a hateful ideology. Lexico defines "espouse" as to "Adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)". This is corroborated by Merriam-Webster's definition "to take up and support as a cause". In order to "espouse hateful ideologies", the region itself must adopt or support hateful ideologies, not merely associate with those who do. No part of this section of the Charter gives the SPSF broader justification to pursue anti-hate actions by closing embassies.

In addition to this textual analysis of Article X(3), the text of the Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles is instructive in terms of how the SPSF is intended to use offensive force. The fourth Whereas clause addresses offensive actions by saying:

Whereas we believe the general principles of defending do not contradict offensive military operations against hateful regions or against forces of subjugation and destruction,

Nowhere in this clause does it argue the SPSF should conduct offensive military operations against regions for the purpose of combatting hate in non-hateful regions. It only argues offensive force should be used against "hateful regions" or "the forces of subjugation and destruction".

Simply put, the Charter and the Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles do not entrust the SPSF with a broad anti-hate and anti-fascist mission at the SPSF's discretion. They entrust the SPSF with a limited offensive anti-hate mission which is specific to regions which themselves espouse hateful ideology. If it were desirable for the SPSF to conduct broader anti-hate missions, the Charter would need to be amended.

Thank you

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Your Honors,

due to RL and other commitments I was/am unable to write a full amicus brief. I am personally neutral on the final outcome of the case; however, for the sake of balance, I intended to write a brief from the position of legality of the embassies. I had a conversation in #government-discussion on Discord with the Minister of Defense explaining a potential issue with banning embassy closures - there is an inherent bidirectionality to embassies where it does not make sense to ban closing them from one end while allowing it from another. I fear there is a potential for reductio ad absurdum that would effectively neutralize the military's ability to attack regions which espouse hateful ideologies.

I am "feedcraft and hungery" in this exchange.

I welcome the Court's questions - however I may be slow to answer.
 

[10:22 PM] feedcraft and hungery: sigh. i never got to writing an amicus brief.
[10:22 PM] feedcraft and hungery: fml.
[10:24 PM] feedcraft and hungery: honeslty i'm not invested in a particular decision one way or the other. yeah i authorized these missions int he past but i also see that they very well could be illegal.
[10:25 PM] feedcraft and hungery: it's just. like. as the petitioner i probalby should have made some additional comment.
[10:25 PM] HumanSanity: For the life of me I cannot understand how they’re legal
[10:26 PM] HumanSanity: No offense. My brain just can’t generate an alternate interpretation
[10:30 PM] feedcraft and hungery: so here's what i would have said - i sort of look at it from the other direction. If these operations are ruled illegal then by rule it might be impossible to shutter embassies from the other direction
[10:30 PM] feedcraft and hungery: if those regions are legally entitled to have embassies with hateful regions, then why are we allowed to close them when we raid a fascist region
[10:31 PM] feedcraft and hungery: like does the protection only go one way?
[10:32 PM] HumanSanity: If a region espouses hateful ideologies we may vandalize and subjugate it.
[10:32 PM] HumanSanity: Including vandalizing its embassies
[10:32 PM] feedcraft and hungery: yeah but why are we allowed to close embassies from that directiona dn not the other
[10:32 PM] feedcraft and hungery: why are they protected in one direction but not the other
[10:32 PM] HumanSanity: Because in one direction the target espouses a hateful ideology
[10:33 PM] feedcraft and hungery: the embassied region still espouses a hateful ideology no matter which direction you're looking at it from
[10:33 PM] feedcraft and hungery: like that's my issue - i fear this could lead to a "reductio ad absurdum" of sorts where we're not allowed to touch embassies at all
[10:34 PM] feedcraft and hungery: like.. if raxulan empire isn't allowed to have embassies, why are regions allowed to have embassies with raxulan empire. an embassy is a bidrectional thing by nature.
[10:35 PM] HumanSanity: Because it’s about the region that is being targeted with offensive force
[10:36 PM] HumanSanity: If a region A loses an embassy because region B has decided to close it, region A has not been subjugated, attacked, vandalized, etc.
[10:36 PM] HumanSanity: They have lost an embassy - not via a direct vandalism of their region
[10:37 PM] feedcraft and hungery: i guess like... it's still offensive force against region a if we seize another region to close embassies with them
[10:37 PM] feedcraft and hungery: bah this makes my head hurt.
[10:37 PM] HumanSanity: You’re welcome to write an amicus brief, but I personally don’t think it’s comparable
[10:37 PM] feedcraft and hungery: I dont' have the time to
[10:38 PM] feedcraft and hungery: what i'm going to do is copy this channel into the high court thread with an explanation
[10:38 PM] feedcraft and hungery: because technically the deadline has passed

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 08-18-2021, 11:42 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply