The South Pacific

I think this case is justiciable. It might be inconvenient to some, but from a procedural perspective it meets all the conditions for justiciability.

Actually, I’m not entirely certain anymore. The question is phrased in a rather particular way that makes me not so sure. What do you think Griffindor?

I see what you mean by the question being phrased in a particular way that makes it a bit challenging to address. Perhaps asking if the petitioner would like to rephrase their question would help?

However, as the question stands now, I still think the case is justiciable. 

My reasoning:

First: Domais' brief indicates that the Court doesn't have the power to review the decision of the Chair, which is false since we literally just did it in 2206.HR.

Second: Glen indicates that the Chair alone has the power to decide when something affects the gameside, saying that their mandate is mentioned twice. While this is true, the right of the gameside to vote on things that affect them is also mentioned several times. If Glen's argument is taken at face value, a Chair can quickly find themselves potentially violating several rights of the RMB citizens, of which the right to vote [to open a GC] comes to mind (Article III, Section 4). Also, refer to my first reason for Glen's argument to the same.

Third: Enough ambiguity lies within the wording of the relevant passages of law (Article III, Section 5 and Article XIII, Section 2) under scrutiny to warrant review. For instance, Article III, Section 5 says that the gameside "activities" can't be impacted. It does not say whether a past, present, or future activity can't be impacted, and not being able to vote on something that affects them would definitely be a present and future activity that is impacted. Similarly, Article XIII, Section 2 says that anything that "affects the gameside ... or its home governance". A resolution for a GC clearly impacts the gameside since the Coalitions framework can be rewritten (including the rights of the RMB), again, maybe not in the immediate present, but as a result of changes, impacts are felt in the RMB. Its only fitting that the RMB have a chance to preserve its status quo before changes are made following a GC.

The question being asked by the petitioner is a valid question that can, and probably should, be asked, and it does stem from a political decision, as does many of the cases we have taken over the years.

It is a bit long-winded, but that's my take. Do you think there is anything that I said that is overtly wrong or contrary to your views?

I don’t disagree that the Court can review the actions of government officials, that’s why we have review requests. I hesitate because the question asks us to determine if the resolution should be subject to a gameside vote, as opposed to asking us if the Chair’s determination met a particular legal test. I know some might say it’s a distinction without a difference, but the former could potentially be seen as the Court doing the Chair’s job rather than reviewing it after the fact.

Then perhaps asking if the petitioner would like to rephrase would be in order. Though, I personally feel that if we have to “do the chairs job” in order to provide continued enfranchisement to the RMB (which would guarantee the rights of many rather than one) then I think that’s a reasonable encroachment upon the chairs power in this one instance.

Echoing Glens prima facie argument, perhaps justification could be the Chairs other questionable calls that spurred 2206.RR and 2207.LQ. Perhaps this is another questionable call that deserves a second look?

The issue is that we’re not being asked to take a look at the Chair’s determination, we’re outright being asked to make it for them.

Very well, then I guess let’s go ahead and rule the case as non-justiciable.